Giants – Page 30 – Keefe To The City

Nov 5, 2010

Big Expectations for Big Blue

After what happened with the Giants in 2009, not many people were giving them a chance before the season and after Week 3 when they were 1-2. But since their loss to the Titans on

After what happened with the Giants in 2009, not many people were giving them a chance before the season and after Week 3 when they were 1-2. But since their loss to the Titans on September 26, the Giants have won four straight and are sitting atop the division and tied for the best record in the NFC. It hasn’t been the cleanest way to get to a 5-2 record for the Giants with an inordinate amount of turnovers through seven games. The Giants have tried to give away every one of their five wins with interceptions and fumbles, but have so far managed to not let untimely turnovers damage their season. Coming off of four straight wins and a bye, the G-Men begin the second portion of their season against the Seahawks. With a one-game lead over the Eagles in the division and nine games remaining (five against division opponents), the Giants have a challenging schedule ahead of them. Ralph Vacchiano, Giants beat writer for the New York Daily News, joined me to talk Giants football with the G-Men set to begin the second part of their schedule.

Keefe: In our preseason talk about the Giants, you predicted the team would go 8-8 and after their slow start to the season, I was scared that your prediction was on the money. But then the defense started playing like it did two years ago, and after four wins in a row, the Giants look like they might be back. I have watched at lot of Giants football to know that you should never feel safe with this team or the way they are going, but right now they are gaining a lot of hype and many people believe they are the best team in the NFC and one of the top teams in the league. After their beating against the Colts earlier in the season, I don’t think anyone would have predicted the Giants to be where they are at now, but the league seems to be wide open and is up for the taking by any team. Your prediction of 8-8 is still in play, though the Giants would need to go 3-6 at this point to fulfill it, and while it’s not out of the question after last season, I hope it’s unlikely. Are you sticking with your prediction in thinking that the Giants have already been as good as they will be all season, or have you become a believer in the G-Men?

Vacchiano: It would probably be unfair of me to change my prediction now. I think it would be pretty naive, too. I’ve just seen too many sudden changes from them over the years. They’ve been 5-2 or 6-1 in every one of Coughlin’s seven seasons now, but how many times have they ended as good as they started? Last year 5-0 became 8-8. In 2006, 6-2 became 8-8. In 2008, 11-1 became 12-4 and no playoff wins. I’m not guaranteeing another second-half collapse, but given that track record I’d be crazy to say, “I’m in. I buy the hype. They’re going 11-5!” How many other years would I have done that and been proven wrong? Plus, we need to go back and look at my wishy-washy prediction of 8-8. I had some pretty good reasons for it and a few caveats. I said from the outset that I believed this team had the talent to be a Super Bowl contender if – a big if – they stayed healthy and everything worked out right. I thought they had some issues, though, and were likely to end up more inconsistent than anything. So far they’re pretty healthy, and that’s great. That’s why they’re playing above my prediction. But I tell you what, the inconsistency is still there. The turnovers have them playing a very, very dangerous game. I didn’t foresee that as a major problem, but it’s become one. And even they know that if they keep that up they’re going to end up losing a lot more games than they should. Knowing that, if they stay healthy and fix the turnover issues, I don’t see any reason why they can’t be 12-4 or 11-5 and win their weak conference. But with nine games left, I still think the injuries and inconsistencies can rear their ugly heads. This remains, though, what I thought it was: A good team that, if things break right, can go a long, long way.

Keefe: Turnovers have been a problem for the Giants this season. Turnovers cost them the game against the Titans and almost cost them the game against the Cowboys – a game they dominated. Aside from the Colts’ loss, you could say the Giants should be 6-1 after the debacle with the Titans. I’m a firm believer that if the Giants can’t find a way to drastically reduce their amount of turnovers, it will come back to cost them in a big spot and eventually cost them their season. Is this the Giants’ biggest problem, and what is being done to rectify the situation?

Vacchiano: Yeah, it’s absolutely their biggest problem. They could’ve easily lost that Dallas game. They came close to losing control of the Chicago and Detroit games, too. And remember, turnovers put them in a position where they needed three end zone interceptions, if I recall, to beat Carolina on opening day. So, if we’re playing the “What if” game, you could say that the Giants only have one real quality win where they didn’t come close to shooting themselves in the foot. That’s not a fair game to play either way, of course, because turnovers are what most of these NFL games turn on today. So yeah, the amount they have right now is disturbing and they know it. Unfortunately there’s not a lot they can do to rectify it. Seven of Eli Manning’s 11 interceptions are off tipped passes. That’s a little flukey. He is throwing a little high and behind his receivers on some of those, but it’s not like he’s going to have some sort of drastic overhaul in his mechanics. He just needs to make better throws and his receivers need to hold onto the ball. On the fumbles, they’re working with Ahmad Bradshaw and, to a lesser extent, Brandon Jacobs on the “high and tight” carry position. But they are fighting instinct. Both players, when they fight for extra yards, the ball tends to drop to their sides. That’s how they’ve run for years and it’s hard to change now. So all they can do is focus on the problem, concentrate, and hope the ball bounces their way a little more than it has. The good news is that historically this hasn’t been a turnover-prone group under Coughlin. Things usually have a way of evening themselves out, so I expect that eventually this will do that, too.

Keefe: The special teams are clearly the biggest weakness on the team. You tweeted that Darius Reynaud will likely not be the returner for long, but it’s amazing he has lasted this long despite such poor results. Matt Dodge has had his ups and downs as well and the coverage on kickoffs could use some help. Do you think we will see a different look from the special teams coming out of the bye and in the second half of the season? And by different I mean a better look.

Vacchiano: I don’t really know what they can do differently. Dodge has been a lot more consistent lately and clearly he’s got the faith of Coughlin and his staff. He’s a rookie, though, so there’ll probably be another couple of ups and downs along the way. The coverage teams just need to tackle better. They can tweak the scheme a little, but if guys flail on the return men or leave their lanes, that won’t help. And you can’t really overhaul the entire special teams unit at this point in time. The only change they can really make is at returner, and now that they’ve signed Will Blackmon I expect they will do that soon. I don’t know how much that will help, though. Blackmon was a good returner in Green Bay, but he’s coming off a knee injury and who knows if he still has his old explosiveness? Plus, a lot of people thought Reynaud was a pretty talented return man, but he obviously didn’t get the job done here. Is it the returner or the scheme or the blockers? It’s hard to say. Probably a little bit of all three. But right now they don’t have a returner as skilled as Domenik Hixon was – a player who can rise above what’s going on around him.

Keefe: Nearly every one of Eli Manning’s interceptions has been the result of a receiver tipping the ball to a defender and missing what should have been a catch. I asked you via Twitter if Randy Moss made sense for the Giants since Eli’s problem has always been missing high and Plaxico Burress took care of that. You basically said there wasn’t a chance, and while I know the Giants aren’t the type of team to take in problem players, I thought Moss could have been the type of tall receiver that would limit Eli’s mistakes.

Vacchiano: Moss only would’ve been a help because he’s tall. And I get that. But as you know, he comes with so many other issues that bringing him in would’ve been disruptive and … well, terrible. Plus, he’s going to want the ball. So who would you want to sit? Hakeem Nicks? Steve Smith? The two of them are very possibly on their way to the Pro Bowl this year. Is Moss really much better, other than being taller? Anyway, I’ve said before I think the problem has more to do with Eli than with his receivers, that a majority of those tipped passes have simply not been good throws. I’ve seen him make better throws than he’s been making. Yes, traditionally he’s a high thrower. In fact, if you read my book (shameless plug alert) – Eli Manning: The Making of a Quarterback – you know that his penchant for throwing high was in Ernie Accorsi’s original scouting report on Eli and it was a big reason why they signed Burress. But I’m confident he can do better. And, to be fair, so can the receivers. The Giants’ coaching staff – I forget which assistant said it – feels that some of the problem has to do with receivers running imprecise routes. So they’ve just got to get crisper on both ends of the passes. And by the way, don’t discount the flukiness of this, too. I can’t remember the last time a tipped pass didn’t land in the hands of a defender. At some point a ball is going to tip off a receiver’s hands and go down or away from the crowd. The number off deflected interceptions in the first seven games has been unusually high. I really do think that the law of averages will even that out. I think.

Keefe: The reversal of Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs roles has worked out well, but how has it worked in the locker room? A major storyline before the season was how Jacobs would react and perform under his new role as a backup, so what is the mood you are getting from No. 27 now that he has been the backup back for seven games, despite his ability to find the end zone on goal line plays? Do you think as long as the team wins Jacobs will be content, or is there always going to another problem just waiting to erupt for Jacobs?

Vacchiano: I’d say it’s probably an uneasy peace right about now. I know that Jacobs is saying all the right things, and that’s admirable – you know, if you ignore his antics through the first few weeks, then I guess you could admire his new stance. But I find it hard to believe that one conversation with Coughlin and Reese suddenly turned him from one of the unhappiest people I’ve seen around that locker room in years into Mr. Everything’s OK. You don’t have to be a genius to realize he’s probably got some simmering, lingering animosity towards the situation. In fact, that’s what I’ve been hearing privately – that he’s counting the days until the end of the season, anticipating that the Giants will cut him loose. He absolutely, positively, does not want to be here next year as a backup, from what I’m told. Now, having said all that, it doesn’t mean he’ll be a problem. He may really be intent on being the good soldier the rest of the way. He seems to genuinely like and respect Ahmad Bradshaw and admire his abilities, so that may be enough to keep him in check. I’m sure his huge salary helps, too. And giving him the goal-line role has been a boost to his ego. So it’s not like I’m waiting for another eruption. But the potential is definitely there. And don’t mistake his change of heart for genuine contentment.

Keefe: Since the embarrassment against the Colts, Perry Fewell has the defense looking like it did two and three years ago. The defense looks completely different than it did a year ago under Bill Sheridan with almost the same exact names. How have the players adapted to Fewell’s system, and do you think the defense is consistent and strong enough to carry the team through the regular season and deep into the postseason?

Vacchiano: I think the players love Perry Fewell’s system, they love the way Perry Fewell calls a defense, they love the way Perry Fewell listens to his players, and they just flat-out love Perry Fewell. Honestly, the last time all the reports on an assistant were this glowing, it was for Steve Spagnuolo the year after the Super Bowl. It’s an aggressive scheme, which the players love. He’s playing to their strengths at almost every position. He’s using his veterans, which is also always important. And it’s working, which is a big thing because in the end it’s the only thing that ever gets players to believe. Can it continue? Yes, absolutely. If – here’s that if again – they can stay healthy. Losing Mathias Kiwanuka was a blow, but they survived it. In fact, they even thrived. They don’t have any other defensive injuries, though. If it stays that way, this is a very good defense. I’m not so sure it’s incredibly deep, though. It might be, but I don’t know that anybody wants to find that out. I still think they’ll probably have a few ups and downs – much like the entire team – even if they stay healthy. But they’re getting terrific pressure. They’re getting a fantastic push up the middle from their DTs. Michael Boley and Jonathan Goff have been excellent at LB. And the secondary has been very solid, if not spectacular. All the ingredients are most definitely there.

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Giants

Apr 29, 2010

Behind Big Blue’s Offseason

It’s hard to stay on top of everything with the Giants during the Yankees season when I have to worry daily about whether or not Nick Johnson will start hitting or if the bullpen will

It’s hard to stay on top of everything with the Giants during the Yankees season when I have to worry daily about whether or not Nick Johnson will start hitting or if the bullpen will hold a lead. Luckily I have Ralph Vacchiano, Giants beat writer for the New York Daily News, to trade e-mails with.

If you’re a Giants fan, Ralph’s Giants blog, The Blue Screen, is the best there is, and his book, Eli Manning: The Making of a Quarterback, is a must read for any Giants fan and Eli Manning fan for inside information on Eli’s career, and the inner workings of the Giants front office under Ernie Accorsi.

In our discussion, we analyzed the Giants’ draft, tried to make sense of Osi Umenyiora’s career downward spiral, picked apart the Giants schedule and tried to figure out how the defense will rebound in 2010.

Keefe: The Giants’ biggest hole entering the draft was in the middle of their defense and they didn’t address that need until Day 3 of the draft. You predicted that the Giants would take Jason Pierre-Paul, which they did, if Rolando McClain was gone by the time they were able to pick, which continued your near flawless record of Giants’ draft predictions.

From what I know and have read about Jason Pierre-Paul, I think I will be happy, as will every other Giants fan with the selection, though Osi Umenyiora might not be as happy. Did the team make a mistake by not addressing their most significant need with one their first three picks and by passing on Sean Lee and Brandon Spikes? And what does the selection of Pierre-Paul mean for Umenyiora’s role on the team and his career with the Giants?

Vacchiano: Well, they didn’t have a choice with their first pick. I still think they would’ve taken Rolando McClain if he were there. But he wasn’t. Could they have taken Lee or Spikes in Round 2? I guess, but they wanted a DT too and they may have gotten a steal in Linval Joseph. In the days before the draft a lot of people started mentioning him as a potential late first-rounder. A lot of teams liked him and he slipped into the Giants’ lap. They felt like they couldn’t pass that value up. They also apparently didn’t have Phillip Dillard rated too far behind Lee on their board (I heard they weren’t crazy about Spikes). So, was it a mistake? I guess that depends on Joseph and Dillard. They don’t think they made a mistake, though.

And I don’t think Pierre-Paul’s arrival will affect Osi much immediately. For now, Pierre-Paul is the fourth end and likely to be used as a situational pass rusher. How much he affects Osi in the future depends on a lot of factors — Osi’s happiness, how fast Pierre-Paul develops, what happens with Mathias Kiwanuka’s contract. But there’s enough uncertainty and defensive end for the Giants that I don’t mind them adding another. Things have a way of working themselves out, just like they did after they added Kiwanuka as a fourth end in 2006.

Keefe: The Umenyiora situation is pretty fascinating to me, considering I don’t spend every day in the locker room and I’m not in the Giants front office to know how good and bad some relationships are between the players and front office executives. All I know is that, Osi was an essential piece to the Super Bowl puzzle, and when Michael Strahan decided to retire, it was Osi along with Justin Tuck who were supposed to lead the defense into the future. Then, Osi goes down with the knee injury and Trent Dilfer says on ESPN that the Giants will “be the biggest disappointment in 2008,” only to have them win the division and get the No. 1 seed without Osi. Then he comes back and the team collapses, and he gets benched and is rumored to be on his way out of town. The whole thing doesn’t make sense.

I guess what I’m saying is Osi was supposed to be a staple in the defense for the future. Then because of injuries and some of the worst defensive performances (by the team, not just Osi), he became the scapegoat for the Giants’ defensive woes. We’re talking about a defense that had C.C. Brown starting before he was eventually benched. There are certainly no excuses for what happened last season and the abysmal play of the defense, but doesn’t it seem ridiculous that Osi comes out looking like bad guy in all of this? The way everything has unfolded with him since the Giants beat the Patriots just seems unfair.

Vacchiano: Yeah, I agree … for the most part. But Osi hasn’t exactly done himself any favors. I don’t think anyone considers him the biggest problem in last year’s defense. Bill Sheridan, injuries, the safeties, the linebackers, the defensive tackles, all would be listed ahead of him. But he wasn’t playing well against the run. He could rush the passer — though depending on whom you ask, he may not have been doing that at his usual standard either — but he was being pushed off the line of scrimmage and seemingly taking the wrong lanes on run defense. The Giants — Sheridan and Tom Coughlin — confronted him about that. And at that point, he had a real bad attitude about the whole thing. One of his teammates told me that he basically checked out mentally, which led to Coughlin and Sheridan to bench him. After that he was useless because he was ticked off.

Then, to make matters worse, he goes on that silly rant at the Super Bowl, demanding his starting job back or he’ll retire. He looked like a baby. Then, given the chance to back off it the next day, he insists that he wasn’t kidding — as if he’d really give up all that money. Then, a few months later, he has that “no comment” press conference where he looks even more ridiculous. Never once does he stand up and say “You know what? Nothing is given to you in life. I get paid a lot of money. I want to start. I’m going to go out and earn it and be a good guy and teammate.”

That would’ve gone a long way towards making him look like a good guy again. The whole defensive collapse definitely wasn’t his fault. But his own actions are what has put him in the spotlight.

Keefe: When it became evident that the Eagles were willing to part with Donovan McNabb, it was almost as relieving as when the Red Sox were finally ready to deal Manny Ramirez, except Manny left the division and went to the National League. For Giants fans, the only place that would have been worse for McNabb to end up other than staying in Philadelphia was Washington. Now he’s a Redskin, and if anyone wanted to question what division is the toughest in football, I don’t think there is really anything to question now.

But here’s the biggest problem with McNabb going to Washington: Where are the Giants going to get those two wins from? Sure, the Giants might still sweep the Redskins in the season series, but now a split is more likely and getting swept is even a possibility. I look at their 2010 schedule and I am having trouble finding 10 wins. Maybe it’s just me being down on the Giants after last year’s debacle, but where are the wins on this schedule that are going to get them in the playoffs? Where are the Giants going to finish in the division and the conference? Is it going to be another winter without a postseason for the G-Men?

Vacchiano: First of all, I won’t play the schedule game with you. I think it’s silly to look at a schedule in April and May and project wins. In the NFL, the success of teams varies wildly from year to year. Plus, it’s not always who you play, but when you play them. The Redskins games look a lot different if McNabb is hurt. The Green Bay games looks a lot different if it snows or if their defense is a mess, so who can tell this early? All I can tell you is the Giants were a disaster last year and still won eight games. Why can’t they win 10 with better health? I mean, they lost everyone on defense last year. Everyone, for at least a game or two. If they can stay in one piece, that’s got to be worth two wins, right?

Besides, if you insist on playing the schedule game, shouldn’t some of those wins come from Philly? Do you really believe the Eagles will be as good as ever now that McNabb is gone? I don’t know about Kevin Kolb. I really don’t. Maybe he’s Aaron Rodgers II. Maybe not. We’ll find out.

But for the moment — and this is really, really early, so I reserve the right to change my mind — I don’t see why the Giants can’t be right up there with the Cowboys as the best teams in this division. I really don’t.

Keefe: I agree that playing the schedule game is pretty ridiculous, but it’s hard to not look at it and try and play the season out in your mind.

I was never the biggest Antonio Pierce fan, but I understood what he meant to the team and what he meant to the defense. Now that he is gone, who steps up and takes leadership of the defense, and how will the team respond to the absence of Pierce for an entire season?

Vacchiano: I would hope by now that they’re used to Pierce being gone, since he was out the second half of last year. So I would hope they’d respond better to his absence. Who the leader will be is not real clear. I thought it was telling in the after-the-season press conference that when Tom Coughlin was asked about leaders he mentioned Jeff Feagles and then pretty much drew a blank. He had none on defense and he knew it.

I think the feeling is that Justin Tuck will be one, and that if he wasn’t so hurt last year he might have even emerged. They also have high hopes that Antrel Rolle will step in and be a leader, too.

Keefe: With the emergence of Hakeem Nicks and Mario Manningham and the outstanding season Steve Smith had, how good can the Giants offense be with Eli now having a full season under his belt with Nicks and Manningham? And how do you think Brandon Jacobs will respond after having a letdown season last year?

Vacchiano: I think the sky is the limit for the passing game. I really do. I have great respect for Eli Manning and think he’s going to be an upper echelon QB in this league before he’s done. And I think he’s got a good and diverse receiving corps. I do have questions about the running game, though. With Jacobs coming off knee surgery, and Ahmad Bradshaw coming off surgery to both his feet and his ankle, and with Andre Brown coming off a torn Achilles, I just don’t know what’s there. The potential is great, but I have serious reservations about whether any of these guys can stay healthy for a full season. That’s definitely a worry with Jacobs. I don’t see any evidence that he can take a pounding and survive. If he can, this has the ingredients to be one of the best offenses in football. If he can’t, it’s one-dimensional and that is just not good.