Should the Giants sit Burress for a couple of weeks?

by Ed Valentine on Dec 4, 2007 8:23 AM EST in New York Giants News

The Giants can clinch a playoff berth this weekend against Philadelphia. Ralph Vacchiano of the Daily News lays out all the scenarios.

Here is a question for you, and I know I am getting a little ahead of myself here.

You're Tom Coughlin. If and when you do clinch a playoff berth, do you shut Plaxico Burress down until the first playoff game and see if you can get his injured ankle healthier for the playoffs?

It's an interesting decision. Burress, even on one healthy leg, is still obviously the Giants best playmaker at receiver. He leads the Giants with 55 receptions and 9 TDs and is still the guy Eli Manning would prefer to throw to whenever possible. No other Giants receiver has more than 3 TDs.

Jeremy Shockey has 54 catches, but it's been obvious for weeks that he and Manning are just not on the same page. In a key spot, do you really have faith that the Giants can call Shockey's number and that he and Manning can make something happen? I love Shockey, but to me the answer is no.

Amani Toomer? Still good hands, but he is no longer a guy who can be a first option.

I have to believe some of Eli's struggles in recent weeks have been tied to Burress' inability to cut and separate from defensive backs.

I am not a doctor, but I would think you would have to consider shutting Burress down completely for 2-3 weeks if there is any chance that will allow him to move more freely once the playoffs start.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Ok

Our posts must have crossed paths. Thanks for posting the scenarios. I would say the Giants have a decent shot at the clinch The Giants win at Philadelphia (good chance) * The Panthers lose or tie at Jacksonville (real good chance) * The Saints lose or tie at Atlanta (decent chance) * The Lions lose to Dallas (only if Jessica Simspon keeps Romo out all night) * The Cardinals lose at Seattle (very good chance)

by Jim Schmiedeberg on Dec 4, 2007 8:31 AM EST reply actions

Shockey

My answer to your question on Shockey is yes. Whatever signals are crossed between the two of them is fixable. Shockey caught 12 passes against Dallas a few weeks ago, so there is chemistry, they just need to find out where it went. My friend and I were having the Eli/No Huddle discussion yesterday, and we were tossing around theories about why he seems so much better in the no huddle. I came up with this uneducated guess, and I would be curious to hear all your thoughts on it: Since plays in the no huddle are obviously called at the line of scrimmage, the play calls and the plays themselves are probably much simpler. Is Eli just more comfortable with the simplified calls that go along with the no huddle?

by Jim Schmiedeberg on Dec 4, 2007 8:38 AM EST reply actions

No huddle

I think I am going to do a full post on this later in the week. I think Eli is simply comfortable w/the faster pace. The slow pace of the Giants offense and all the pointing and line calls make me nuts. I think the faster pace lets him just take the snap and throw the ball and not worry about all the other crap.

by Ed Valentine on Dec 4, 2007 9:42 AM EST up reply actions

Sure, that's a big part of it, plus

the fact that no huddle doesn't allow the defense to set up. I suspect there's more as well, but damned if I can come up with what it is

by george cronin on Dec 4, 2007 9:53 AM EST up reply actions

Good points by all

as to why Eli is more comfortable in the no-huddle, but I doubt the Giants coaches will want to go to it more than a couple of times a game. They're identity is a power running team that takes big shots down the field (not so much lately, see: Plax). Does going to the no-huddle fit that identity? I really don't know, but I suspect that TC & Gilbride would say no.

If I'm going to break them, I'm going to break them both. - LT

by potroast on Dec 4, 2007 10:48 AM EST up reply actions

One thing to keep in mind

about the no huddle, and Eli's success with it is that the Giants have generally only used it at the end of games when they are losing, at which time opposing D's are usually in some variation of the awful prevent defense. I would love to see the Giants go no-huddle earlier in games (hey, it worked for the Buffalo Bills in the early 90's, at least till they got to the Super Bowl), but I wonder how much it would help.

by cjmulrain on Dec 4, 2007 11:36 AM EST up reply actions

Plax

I think they should sit Plax ASAP. They can basically back their way into the playoffs now, so let's make sure he's healthy. What if he does more damage to those legs? It's obvious that the knee is because of the ankle. Then he could possibly play the last week or 2 and get his timing back before the playoffs.

If I'm going to break them, I'm going to break them both. - LT

by potroast on Dec 4, 2007 9:29 AM EST reply actions

Remember

when the Eagles went to the Super Bowl? They shut down TO for the last few weeks of the regular season and the playoffs, and then he came back and was pretty much the best player in that Super Bowl. That's why I think it's imperative for the Giants to rest Plaxico for a few weeks. With him healthy, the passing game improves dramatically, and all of a sudden this becomes the team that 5 weeks ago people were predicting could be a Super Bowl team again.

by cjmulrain on Dec 4, 2007 11:38 AM EST up reply actions

Plax

For me, the question is simple. If 2-3 weeks will help, sit him down. If the docs say it would take 2-3 months then maybe it doesn't matter. Either way, though, you have to be careful with him so he has something in the tank for the playoffs.

by Ed Valentine on Dec 4, 2007 11:46 AM EST up reply actions

I've been saying for a while Plax should sit, so I

agree with you totally. As for Eli and Shock, there's no reason why they can't repeat what they did in the last Dallas game. I'd like to see the Giants try to stretch the field with Shock as well. Keep ginving Moss and Bradshaw opportinities also

by george cronin on Dec 4, 2007 9:58 AM EST reply actions

Shockey

Whatever is going on w/Shockey and Manning the Giants have to fix it. This offense is much better when Shockey is a big part of it, and they have to be able to get him the ball 6-7 times a game -- especially in the playoffs.

by Ed Valentine on Dec 4, 2007 10:03 AM EST up reply actions

should rest plax when we can

after we clinch a spot and cant get homefield. so with the cowboys clinching any day now that could come after this week.

god damn it are the cowboys really that close to clinching the division?

by DieEaglesDie on Dec 4, 2007 12:37 PM EST reply actions

shockey

Does anyone remember a couple of weeks ago Shockey said something about the miscommunication, but then said he wasn't going to explain football terms that not everyone would understand. Makes me think there's definitely some sort of problem. Of course my theory is that Eli is a sociopath, look at the evidence, no feelings, last year in training camp Shockey was jawing at him and Eli hung a pass up over the middle and let Shockey get crushed by Demps and was out for a few weeks. You heard it here first, Eli is a sociopath

by queler on Dec 4, 2007 12:55 PM EST reply actions

Nah

But I do know Shockey has been running in one direction and Eli throwing in another for a while. The INT against the Bears was a great example. Eli threw that ball exactly where he wanted to, but that's not where Shockey went. What bothers me is these two guys have been together for 4 years now, and stuff like that should not happen anymore.

by Ed Valentine on Dec 4, 2007 1:29 PM EST up reply actions

maybe Shockey

just doesn't like Eli? I mean, I love Shockey, but it does seem like he hasn't played nearly as hard the last few years as he used to. People talk about him like he's an old veteran on his last legs, but he's only been in the league 5 years, he should be hitting his prime now. Shockey seems like a pretty blue-blooded guy, maybe he just doesn't really respect Eli because of the fact that he comes from football royalty or something like that. It could also be that he doesn't like Coughlin, which is why he doesn't play as hard. Or, I could be crazy, and maybe injuries really have caught up with him and he's just not as good as he used to be.

The scary thing is, does anyone else feel like he's a future Patriots reclamation project waiting to happen? I don't know what Shockey's contract situation is, so I don't know when he'll become a free agent, but his production has been declining the last few years, and I could see him walking to NE in 2 or 3 years and turning back into an all-pro beast the way Moss did this year.

by cjmulrain on Dec 4, 2007 2:50 PM EST up reply actions