Money

I think they're just as balanced as we are. The two offense are very similar, both philosophically and personnel-wise. They have a much bigger OL, but our has more continuity and athleticism. They are slightly more aggressive passing the ball, we are a little more efficient on the ground. They obviously get far more production from their TEs; however, our deployment of Smith and occassionally Toomer (not to mention Boss) is a close facsimile. Both offenses are coordinated by former QBs and led by QB that are, at their core, gunslingers. Romo might be more mobile, but Eli takes fewer sacks. And so on. Know thy enemy, know thy self.

I agree fewer slants, but we still throw a good amount of play actions, fades, back shoulder fades, 15-yard ins (to Burress and now Hixon twice on Sunday), verticals, hitches (generally to Toomer), corners (mainly to Smith and Boss), deep outs. We've begun to use some more WR screens, as we did with Hilliard. And we do a lot of the same stuff in the red zone, notably that strech PA with a WR stutter over the middle (usually to Toomer though Tyree's TD in the Super Bowl was on this play). One of the big differences between our '07 offense and the playoff offense/'08 incarnation is Smith, who really has an entirely different repetroire of routes up his sleeve. On another related note, I think he's a better pure passer than he's given credit for. Being healthy is a big positive this year. Remember that shoulder injury that was suppossed to keep him about a month early last season?

Well they have the same coaches and personnel this year, so last year serves as a fine barometer. There haven't been enough games played to make any meaningful conclusions about this year. But for the sake of argument, Dallas is averaging 138 rushing yards per game, which is 7th in the league. And Witten continues to lead the team in receptions. In fact, he has twice as many as the next guy...

This is a lot of detective work for something ultimately amounts to nothing...

His wife is actually an attorney. So yes, she was working.

I don't know. Our offense today sure looks a lot like our offense in the playoffs, which looked more or less identical to what we saw in '07 regular season. I think Eli has improved as his receivers have become more reliable and he's become more confident in their abilities.

Are you asking for passing plays of 30+ yards, or passes attempted 30+ yards past the LOS? There's a monumental difference. I assume your hypothesis is that Dallas attempts more downfield throws than any other team, but I'm asking just to be clear. That said, if your hypothesis proves to be true, I think that reflects positively on Romo. They have the confidence in him to connect on those deep passes, and he obviously does so adeptly. Hence his top-notch TD and YPA numbers. Obviously he does things that other QBs can't do, otherwise every team would replicate the Madden offense. But Witten's production -- notably leading the team receptions both this year and last year -- would seemingly belie the idea that Dallas is a hail mary offense.

They had 1750 rushing yards last year. Their TE led the team in receptions. They attempted fewer passes than we did (529 to 520). That doesn't sound like one-dimensional 'Madden' offense, nor does it suggest that Romo's numbers are inflated. And his numbers are extremely good: 97.1 career QBR, and roughly a third of his passes attempt came while Parcells was the coach...before Jason Garrett ever installed the misappropriately named Madden offense. And if you guys want to argue that Dallas' offense is so good because of Garrett, fine. But get used to that type of annual productivity because he's going to be there a long time.

Who cares about his alleged attitude? He plays hard and there's no issues within the team. We win with him on the field.

And how does that reflect poorly on the QB...or the offense for that matter?

What does that even mean?

You argued that Romo's first two playoff losses were worse than Eli's. That just isn't the case. Saying Romo was the "sole reason" the Cowboys lost would be a pretty blind assessment of that game. The guy is a really good QB. There's just no two ways about it.

The turnovers are part of the price you pay for 40 TDs and 450 points each year. He's basically the new Favre -- high-risk, high-reward. Quick -- who lead the NFL in turnovers last year?

You can make a case for letting a QB learn on the bench (Rodgers, Philip Rivers, Chad Pennington, Carson Palmer) or starting him from Day 1 (McNabb, Peyton) or getting in midway through the rookie season (Eli, Cutler, Vick). The truth is, there's no preferred method...it just depends on the QB himself and the team that surrounds him. Aarom Rodgers is also much more fleet of foot than JaMarcus Russell, who's more of a traditional pocket passer than anything else. Rodgers is also a little more athletic than Campbell as well...

Eli threw thee picks against the Panthers and led the offense to an impressive 0 points. Yeah, I'd say he had a pretty big hand in the outcome. But he wasn't the only reason the Giants lost to the Panthers, just as Romo wasn't the only reason the Cowboys lost to the Seahawks ... 59+ minutes of football were played before the fumbled snap. And, really, that's a strike against Romo the holder, not Romo the QB. Romo the QB is pretty damn good, and obviously played well enough to win in Seattle that day. Of course, the 'Romo the Homo' narrative loves to point to the alleged playoff meltdown against the Giants (although the 'Giants are the Bestest' narrative glorifies a tenacious pass rush ... these two contingents should really get their stories straight). But I seem to recall Patrick Crayton having a fairly critical drop on 3rd down. I also recollect their OL looking extremely sluggish by the end of the game -- the Giants didn't even pressure Romo until the first possession of the 4th quarter, and they didn't register their first sack until 10:26 remaining in the game. Romo didn't play well down the stretch, but the rest of his offensive team wasn't playing winning football either.

Eli lost his first two postseason starts as well. So did a number of really great QBs. It's ok to admit that other teams have good players...

I agree with everything except the comment about T.O. What separates him from the other top receivers is his willingness to go over the middle...like he did yesterday on that 52-yard TD. He's one of the absolute toughest players in the league.

I bet you that if/when Toomer retires, Hixon becomes the "starter" ahead of Smith. Furthermore, I bet you that despite being the starting flanker, Hixon doesn't get any more playing time than Smith. They both are terrific young players with excellent attitudes, and they both factor into the team's long-term plans. Arguing over who is better or who will start or who is deserving of more playing time is nitpicking ... it's just as silly as insisted that "Smith should be the flanker and Hixon the slot" or whatever variation you prefer. Like I said in the previous post, they'll be consistently moved around in order to exploit favorable match-ups. If the Giants decided that Smith would be flanker, Burress the split-end, and Hixon is the slot receiver on every down without fail ... well, our Giants would be suddenly much easier to defend. They would be, dare I say, predictable. Regarding your latter point, Hixon was routinely lined up as the X yesterday (Plax's position). While my previous post provided examples where all the receivers were deployed from various locations, Hixon's pre-snap location was almost always as an outside receiver (although the team does move Burress around a lot). So it looks like they see Hixon better suited to be on the outside of the formation rather than in the slot. And being outside does enhance his ability to strecth the field. Slot receivers are generally used as zone busters, working the middle of the field, getting underneath targets, and so on. It's difficult to use slot receivers as deep threats because they are lined up closer to the opponents safeties than the wideouts. An outside receiver, on the other hand, will force the safety to cover more ground when he challenges the defense vertically...the safety has to move laterally in addition to moving away from the LOS. Hixon was a 4th round pick in '06.

That all means nothing. Smith is no nore the slot receiver than Toomer or even Burress for that matter. The Giants move all of their receivers around with regularity. That's a consequence of trying to create favorable match-ups. Toomer was lined up in the slot on that deep corner route that set-up Jacobs' first TD. He was guarded by Jordan Babineaux -- Seattle's dime CB -- while Smith was isolated on the left side of the formation. Later in the game, Smith was lined up in the left slot on the long catch he made where he lost his shoe. This time, Toomer was isolated on the right side of the formation, across from Marcus Trufant. Smith and Toomer were both the wideouts on Sinorice Moss's 23-yard TD. You might recall that Moss entered the game in place of Domenik Hixon. Moss later scored his second TD when he was isolated against Trufant. Toomer and Smith were both lined up slot left on this play, with Mario Manningham as the outside receiver. Saying that Plax is X, or Toomer is Y, or Smith and Moss are strictly slot guys, or Hixon is sexy or whatever ... it's all nonsense. All the receiver are deployed in a variety of ways that cannot be limited to a simple title. It's a complexity that requires all the receivers to be familiar with multiple roles, and it's designed to accentuate their relative strengths and the skillset of the QB.

The Giants and their antiquated stadium are only in the middie of the pack as far as revenue is concerned. Their being routinely out-earned by every other team in their division. That puts them at a competitive advantage, especially as new stadium continue to proliferate throughout the league.

They won't go that far. After all, they're trying to win games. But it's not difficult for a guy to miss 15% of the defensive snaps over the course of a game. If there's 70 defensive snaps, Vilma would only have to sit out 11 plays in order to be under the 85% mark. More important, you guys are missing the bigger part of the agreement: the Saints would have to sign Vilma to an extension before the end of the season. Since the Saints control the timing of an extension, they can very easily avoid losing their 1st round pick. They can elect not to re-sign Vilma, or they can wait until after the season to re-sign him. In either case, they circumvent the wording of the agreement and retain their 1st round pick.

Regarding the timing of the trade, it has nothing to do with extracting more value from the Saints or anything like that. During the draft, the Giants were under the impression that Shockey would let go of his issues with management and refocus on being a member of the team. Both John Mara and Steve Tisch talked to him privately, and they felt any ongoing problems could be reconciled. Reese did not want to trade him, although he was willing to listen to what the Saints were offering. By July, it was obvious that Shockey wasn't ready to put past issues behind him, and he more or less begged his way off the team. At that point, Reese really had no other choice but to trade him. Plan A was to keep a happy Jeremy Shockey, which is why they didn't make the deal on draft day.

Paul Dottino's interview on the Michael Kaye Show painted a pretty clear picture: Shockey forced his way off the team. He was upset that he was forced to sit in the luxury box, even though his doctor recommended that he not attend the Super Bowl; he was upset to hear rumors that the Giants and Saints were talking trade (even though the Saints -- not the Giants -- leaked those rumors); and he might have been angry because of a decelerator clause in his contract that might have cost him $300,000.

Yes, I believe Sportswrath needs a section exclusively devoted to my musings and unlimited expertise.

For the daft... http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2008/07..._shockey_d.html