But What Happens When We Have The Ball?

Most of the pre-game analysis I've seen so far has been startlingly one-dimensional.  The idea seems to be that if the Eagles can simply stop Brandon Jacobs, everything else will take care of itself and they'll win easily.

Ok.  Sure, stopping Jacobs is a big deal, but he's not even going to be on the field for what, 18 minutes of this thing?  Don't we have to at least look at the other match-ups out there?

Let's talk for a minute about the Giants defense, using last week's Vikings discussion as a starting point:

It seems to me that the Eagles Patented Bad Offensive Performances happen in one of three ways:

1)  McNabb can't hit the broad side of a barn.  He has two of these every year.  Luckily, they've already happened.  (Or is it a calendar year thing...)

2)  Unrelenting pressure completely disrupts the Eagles' passing attack.  It happens.  Fortunately for the Eagles, it's more often their defense doing it. 

3)  Tight, physical cornerback play shuts down everything on the outside, forcing the Eagles to try increasingly futile ways to get Westbrook the ball in space.  We saw this two weeks ago in Washington.  And several other times I won't be so rude as to dredge back up.

For posterity's sake, I was big-time wrong about the Vikings.  Their years of experience on the Eagles' coaching staff meant they knew all about the above three bullets, which is why they did not do this:

Minnesota is much more likely to ... keep [their] safeties back, tackle well, and force the Eagles to go five yards a pop down the field, figuring eventually they'll get impatient or won't be able to execute consistently.

Wrong-o.  The Vikings blitzed early, they blitzed middle and they blitzed late -- and it almost worked.  (There's another lesson there for the Giants game we'll get to in a few minutes). 

Speaking of going against type, one of the really strange things about the first two Giants games is how little blitzing we saw out of two Jim Johnson inspired defensive schemes.  It made sense from the Eagles' perspective.  Unless the league lets you play with 13 guys, you can't go crazy blitzing AND play defense in depth against the run AND provide additional help to whomever ends up covering Plaxico Burress. 

On the Giants' side, it's a little hard to figure.  Yes, they want to keep "22 eyes on 36."  That's a little harder to do if you have 12 eyes chasing after the quarterback.  On the other hand, if you blitz well enough, it's not like Westbrook has time to get anything going anyway.  You can also keep him locked in the backfield as a pass protector if you pick your spots well and always keep an eye out for the screen (which they do).

(Quick aside:  I've called the Giants the best screen defense in the league any number of times.  This, it now seems, is probably wrong.  The Giants are actually just the best screen defense when they play the Eagles.  Against other teams, they blow screen pick-ups with maddening regularity.  There's just something about the Eagles, it turns out.)

Reasons I think we might see the Giants blitz more this game:

Not blitzing hasn't worked all that well.  The Giants allow 18.4 points per game, but the Eagles have scored 31 and 20 against them.  Might try something different.

Blitzing forces the backs to help protect.  As above, why cover Westbrook when you can smother him.

Overloading one side can expose the other.  Jared Allen is a very good pass rusher, but so are the Giants' two outside guys.  I'm not sure how many more one-on-one match-ups we want to see out there on the back side.

Blitzing changes the timing in the Westbrook passing game.  One subtle shift the Eagles used to free Westbrook more in the second Giants' game was to get Westbrook running his routes five or so yards downfield, rather than side-to-side behind the line of scrimmage.  The problem with all those swing routes is that it's easy for every guy on the defense (including the linemen) to flow to the ball.  It's basically an extended handoff with no blocking.  If you instead get Westbrook into space, then suddenly a linebacker actually has to cover him and there's not as much help available.  If the Giants blitz a lot, there's much less time for Westbrook to get his chip, fight through the trash, and then run his route. 

It works.  McNabb and his line did a fantastic job handling the blitz by the Vikings.  With that said, there have been plenty of games where that wasn't the case, particularly if the Eagles' receivers are having trouble shaking coverage.

The Eagles' screen game doesn't scare the Giants.  The easiest way to back off the blitz is by screening them a few times.  Doesn't work against New York. 

Want a reason why the Giants won't blitz more?  Maybe they remember the Westbrook TD run when they stacked nine at the line and the Iggs burned them.

- - - - - -

On the other side of things, I'm not so sure that everyone's got this Brandon Jacobs thing right either.  Yes, controlling the Giants' running game and getting the defense off the field is the top priority.  No question.  But the general sense seems to be that we can count on the Giants to come out pounding us, and only trying something else if in need of a backup plan.

I'm not sure I see that.  After all, it's not like Tarvaris Jackson is their QB.  They have Eli Manning, who for all his obvious faults is still a pretty decent quarterback.  You don't have to baby him out there.

We know the Giants -- at some point -- will try to grind us down.  We know the Eagles' defense is going to be super keyed-up early to stop the run.  Finally, we also know that the Giants' passing game is at its most dangerous and effective when it's being set up with copious amounts of play action.

If I'm Gilbride, I'm going to try to use the Eagles' defensive aggressiveness against them by going play action / deep ball early, both to try for the quick strike, but also to back off the runstoppers and make them be a bit more honest. 

The Eagles defenders are undersized up front and have to be a bit worn down, but they're also tenacious against the run and don't yield ground easily.  Might not be a bad idea to use the pass early to set up the run for the rest of the game.

- - - - - -

Last prediction for today:  Sometime during one of Brandon Jacobs' first four carries, Brian Dawkins will attempt to kill him.  The old guy is playing flat out crazy right now.

Comments

[Dan]

Derek:
I agree with you 100% about the Giants coming out throwing...remember the Bear game and how easily they moved down the field against our aggressive "we must stop the run" mentality..(brought back memories of when the chiefs did the same thing to us back in 1993 when we walked into arrowhead 4-0 after the pre-bye week win over Dallas)

I just hope J.J. and the guys keep this in mind...

[Gabe from BountyBowl]

1993!

H/T to Dan.

[quest4fire85]

I am not too worried about the Eagles Defense. I can envision them holding the Giants to under 21 points. Since adding Akeem to the mix they have been very stout. I'm more worried about the Eagles offense having the kind of performance they had against the Redskins 3 weeks ago. If McNabb is having an "off" day, we're in big trouble.

They key to victory is to get a 2 TD lead on the Giants so they will be forced to abandon the "eating the clock" ground game and throw.

[BFH]

A couple of guys that can be exploited on their defense. First, Kenny Phillips. He's a very good tackler, but like a lot of young guys his speed gets him in trouble because he can be too aggressive and out of position. If the Eagles can be effective with the running game they might catch Phillips out of position with some play action.

Obviously Pierce, who is a fatass. He is very smart, though, and he watches a ton of film. Not sure what the coaching staff has up their sleave to surprise the Giants, but it would be good if Pierce isn't calling out our plays at the LOS.

[BFH]

Pierce can obviously be taken advantage of in space, and the Giants do teams the favor of leaving him on the field for every defensive down.

[BFH]

And in other potentially ridiculously important news... Justin Tuck sounds like he's really hurting.

[Colin_K]

If the defense does come out aggressive, I would be worried about cut back runs that always seem to be a hallmark of success for the opponents.

This probably wouldn't involve Jacobs though so that kills everbodies expectation that if the Eagles stop him, the game is theirs...probably Ward would be the guy there.

Have the Giants ever come out with, say Ward and Jacobs in the backfield together?

[Colin_K]

I meant to type everybody's...

[Michael]

Amen on Dawkins. Remember the last Giants game when Dawkins came up on Kevin Boss (who didn't even have the ball and was blocking backside), gave him a forearm to the throat (watch the replay carefully -- he made it look like a block for the refs, but it was a forearm to the throat), and then executed a double-leg takedown to dump him on his back? I could just watch that over and over...

Anyway, yes, he is absolutely going to try to kill Jacobs. I just hope he has the sense to either hit him low or head-tackle him rather than hit him straight on. Jacobs outweighs him by like 40 pounds.

[Michael]

Oh! I got it! Tackle Jacobs at the knees (the bad one). That would immediately start a shoving match, which is exactly what our defense needs at the start of this game.

[xtianDC]

Offensively, we really need better performances from the tackles. Seemed like Runyan and Tra were really struggling last weekend. Hopefully it was the dome factor. Need those guys to really dominate.

This is the kind of game where the cliches seem really apropos. The recipe for winning is dominating the line of scrimmage and getting off to a quick start. When a team hasn't really played in weeks, if you can jump on them early, they start to doubt themselves.

[Eagles Fan in San Fran]

"If I'm Gilbride, I'm going to try to use the Eagles' defensive aggressiveness against them by going play action / deep ball early, both to try for the quick strike, but also to back off the runstoppers and make them be a bit more honest."

Makes perfect sense, Derek - I can see them trying it on the very first play to set that tone.

Now if it is a windy day, that strategy will, of course, go out the window. But for our offense's sake, let's hope and pray that it isn't windy.

[Chris Iafolla]

I honestly don't think you will see either team open it up too much. The Eagles may take a shot downfield early on to keep the Giants honest. Same holds true for the Giants--one shot down the field might be enough to keep the safeties honest. But the reality is, this will be a ball control game where clock management and field position play major roles.

[Eagles Fan in San Fran]

Just listened to Tiki B. on a Yahoo sports video interview - he's picking the G-men, but admitted it's basically only because he doesn't want to get a bunch of text messages from his ex-teammates harrassing him if he were to dare pick the Eagles.

He also said that no way Pierce can handle Westbrook alone and the G-men will need to cheat up with safety help. He wants the G-men to pound it on the ground all day like in the first matchup (and he nicely avoided Eli's name when suggesting this).

[Eagles Fan in San Fran]

From GCobb today:

"I can see Andy Reid feels good about the passing game he and Marty Mornhinweg have put in. I don't know if that's good news or bad news.

Should we want it to be windy so that Andy won't go crazy throwing the ball?"

[Eagles Fan (Prematurely Dreaming) in San Fran]

MUST FOCUS ON GIANTS - BLOCK OUT IMAGE OF JUST THE CARDINALS (THE FREAKING ARIZONA WORST-FRANCHISE-EVER CARDINALS) STANDING IN THE WAY OF A TAMPA BAY SB APPEARANCE.
SO CLOSE, BUT STILL SO FAR - MUST BLOCK IT OUT.
FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS!