Even the magnificent Bears defense of 1985, the best defense I ever saw, and probably will ever see, lost one game. Life is not perfect. The Eagles had 10 days of rest, and I strongly believe that that had more to do with the Giants' loss than anything else. Westbrook was healthier than at anytime since the beginning of the season. (How about shadowing him on 3rd down with a Safety instead of Pierce?) They wanted the game more than the Giants. The Giants are 11-2, they are division champions, they are going to bounce back from this loss the same way they did after Cleveland. And if they cannot make the adjustments necessary, then they don't deserve the bid for SB XLIII we all feel they have a legitimate shot at. I believe they will get the answers. And if they don't, then we can look for answers ourselves.
When Osi was put on season-ending IR, I nearly jumped off the skyscraper, but came to my senses a few hours later and said two things needed to happen: they needed to move Kiwi back to DL and they needed to start Bradshaw. Hours after that, they moved Kiwi back, but I am still waiting like the jackbrown that I am for #44 to get the ball. At this point, all I want is touches for the guy because he is #3 on the totem pole. He got 5 touches (all runs, all to the right(?)), and the Eagles are playing run as much as possible. So you see, the point here is that we are at a moment where someone is going to blink. The Giants have a tool in the shed, a card in their hand, that needs to get played in order for them to show YET ONE MORE GEAR in their engine, the GEAR that can put them over the top. The gear that can "help" them win a championship. I strongly feel that this card would have changed the offense this afternoon. Why? Because even though the Eagles are undersized, they were committed to stopping the run and that is why Hixon would be able to get behind everyone while Burress would not. So the answer is delayed pass to the TE or RB after they chip. It blows my mind that you have an open field runner like Bradshaw who can make people miss and yet you do not use him. Everyone keeps telling me (except my politically incorrect clone Nature) that Jacobs and Ward are fine, we can go all the way with them, and my answer is: fine, let's go all the way with them but please get #44 the ball too. On days like these, it is simply impossible for me to believe he would not have made a difference, and probably a big one. I see the things #36 did and I say- let #44 do those same things.
So who is going to blink? When do the Giants coaches acknowledge that w/o Burress, it would be nice to be able to have something ELSE in the offense that stretches the defense? If the Giants offense keeps getting stacked at the line of scrimmage, it is going to be IMPERATIVE that the gmen find passing answers, and when the weather is inconducive to passing, what are you going to do? Blink? Or admit I am going to lose if I do not try something a little different, like using my fastest and most versatile back to take some pressure off of Eli and Hixon and the rest of the WRs. Like I said, necessity is the mother of invention. Nothing like the defense loading the box and losing your double covered WR for you to either respond by embracing change or BLINKING.
Remember, IT IS THE WIND. There was no wind in Tampa Bay or Dallas or Green Bay or Glendale AZ. There was no wind this season vs Washington (when we had no Burress and they loaded the box). YOU HAVE TO ASSUME MANNING IS GOING TO HAVE WIND IN THE MEADOWLANDS IN JANUARY. How do you meet that challenge? Tap that versatile asset sitting (okay, Nature, WASTING) on the sideline and get him in the game. If we get dealt this hand and do not play this card, then the Killdrives and Kilbrowns et al will come out of (wind) storage.