Plaxico Suspended For Hawks Game

by 12thman on Sep 24, 2008 7:09 AM PDT Comment 35 comments

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. (AP)—Super Bowl star Plaxico Burress was suspended for one game by the New York Giants on Wednesday for an undisclosed violation of team rules.

General manager Jerry Reese and coach Tom Coughlin informed Burress of the suspension Wednesday morning before the team held a bye-week practice.

The suspension takes effect immediately, meaning Burress will miss the Giants (3-0) game against the Seattle Seahawks on Oct. 5.

Burress will be allowed to return to team activities the following day.

This bodes very well for the Hawks. The only thing slower than Brian Russell is Amani Toomer. Are things beginning to look positive for a change?

Update by John Morgan: Typically, I argue not to overstate the value of one player. Great teams make stars, but stars do not make great teams. Plaxico Burress is an exception. Not just because he's so much better than the Giants other receivers, but because he's perfectly matched for Eli Manning's abilities and inabilities. In 2007, Burress accounted for 139 DYAR. Manning, -70. While that could be a function of Burress' position, scouting data backs up the numbers. Manning is notorious for his overthrows and the 6'5" and exceptionally rangy Burress was the perfect foil for Manning's inaccuracy. Well, nearly. Burress receives a lot of wild passes "targeting" him, and as such has hovered around a 50% completion percentage in his three years with New York.

In the past three season, Burress has missed one game. In 2006, against the Houston Texans, Eli Manning, including sacks, attempted 30 passes for an adjusted net yards per attempt of 4.43. That season, Manning and the Texans opponents averaged 5.6 adjusted net yards per attempt. What production Manning had that day came through his tight end and running backs. The wide receivers combined for five receptions for 52 yards. The only remaining wide receiver from that group of Mike Jennings, Tim Carter and Amani Toomer is Toomer. Toomer suffered worst of all, targeted four times, for an interception, an incomplete and two receptions for 16 yards. Toomer is now 34, and tore his ACL in 2006. Toomer is also now New York's nominative number one receiver.

Toomer and Burress have accounted for 55% of Manning's passing yards in 2008. The team doesn't "lose" Burress' production as some would imply, but that doesn't example how dependent on his top two wideouts Manning is. With the loss of Burress, Toomer will presumably shift into the number one receiver spot on the right, and Steve Smith will move into Toomer's spot on the left. The 5'11" but fast Smith is a better physical matchup for Kelly Jennings (or Josh Wilson) than the 6'3", slow but physical Toomer. With Marcus Trufant more than able to shut down Toomer, the Giants will need to emphasize their run game. Brandon Jacobs, fast for a big man, but slow and inagile for a running back, is the type of bruiser Seattle's fast, gang tackling and aggressive front seven feasts on. Needless to say, the loss of Burress creates a cascade that weakens the Giants offense and improves Seattle's matchups. It doesn't, however, weaken New York's still dominant defense. Seattle must manage to sustain drives and protect Matt Hasselbeck or risk losing a defensive-led bloodbath.

A place to bury strangers.

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Haha

Now they have their excuse all ready to go for when they get smoked.

Bringin' the outside heat.

by FizzleDrip on Sep 24, 2008 7:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I second that statement

You know the pundits will use it, the excuse rather.

2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.

by Chickadee on Sep 24, 2008 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait

If we win, and they complain about losing a starting receiver the irony will be delicious.

I don't believe in the existence of the St. Louis Rams. They're just an urban legend!

by johnnycougar on Sep 24, 2008 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ohhhhhh

good point as well. But we’ll probally have one or two of em back.

2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.

by Chickadee on Sep 24, 2008 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so we'll only be missing half of our recievers

and they’ll be without 1.

we’re still without a healthy number 1, 2, or 3. our number 1, branch, will not be anywhere near playing shape. koren was playing with his kids two weeks ago.

i cant wait for that excuse to be used, i might haveto visit the giants blog to see how the weather is :)

by vanrijn on Sep 25, 2008 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is great for the Hawks!

Plaxico is a very tough cover and easily Manning’s favorite target. I was worried about this NYG game because they are a good team and we have continued to struggle on the road. A hidden blessing with losing two early contests is that the Hawks are likely to float under the radar until very late in the season. Last year they started out 4-4 and were not really getting attention until long after they had started winning consistently.

Still, the hawks are easily lulled into complacency. You don’t want them so confident with Burress out that they let Hixon or Toomer burn us. This reeks of the Steelers game last year without Hampton, Polamalu, etc. Or the opener against Buffalo with them missing their T and LB.

It sucks for NYG that they committed all this money to Plax and then his commitment to the team is instantly under question. It’s easy to criticize Ruskell for an acquisition like Russell, who is all character and no talent, but it’s great not needing to deal with these kind of unpredictable headcases.

I would have rather had Burress play and get popped by Deon Grant a couple times but I’ll take what I can get.

by michaelfox99 on Sep 24, 2008 7:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If it got him suspended...

I’d sacrifice a sack of kittens to make Russell an unpredictable headcase.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2008 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Smells like

A Shaun Alexander story, only Shaun had the good sense to maintain attendance, he just let his play drop off.

2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.

by Chickadee on Sep 24, 2008 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mookie

I hid yours because this one beat you to it.

Good news for the Hawks

You may gain some yards on the ground, but eventually Lofa will end up biting you in the ass.

by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 24, 2008 8:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I've had at least 4 stories that I've been beaten to by minutes or literally seconds. ;-)

But I’m so happy!

Josh Who?

by SSreporters on Sep 24, 2008 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

FYI

Quote and don’t post a link and I will delete your post.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2008 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

"Brandon Jacobs, fast for a big man, but slow and inagile for a running back"

As a Giants fan, I don’t really agree with this at all. Jacobs actually runs a better 40 yard dash than Bradshaw or Ward. The only real flaw with his game is that he has stone hands.

In actuality, our fans are expecting Dominik Hixon to start and Smith to remain in the slot.

by number_twentyone on Sep 24, 2008 11:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Good information on Hixon.

Jacobs is agile for his size, cuts well, is an exceptional power back, but he’s not agile or fast compared to the average running back.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2008 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For the curious:

Here are Jacobs combine results.

4.56 in the 40-yard dash…2.64 20-yard dash…1.6 10-yard dash…4.46 20-yard shuttle… 11.98 60-yard shuttle…7.53 three-cone drill…37-inch vertical jump…9’10" broad jump… Bench pressed 225 pounds 19 times…33 5/8-inch arm length…10 5/8-inch hands…20 Wonderlic score.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2008 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Makes sense.

I agree that Jacobs is not the type of back that usually gives us fits. I also agree he will get the majority of the carries. We have to take advantage of the fact that Jacobs is a horrible receiver. Even if he catches it he has to slow down to do so and then is easy to reach. Look for the backfield passing when Ward is in.

Bradshaw won’t see much work.
Smith will undoubtedly get most of Burress’s reps despite Giants fans liking Hixon. Smith is

A pick of the Giants
A high pick ( second round)
A recent pick

Hixon is none of these things.

by michaelfox99 on Sep 24, 2008 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Giants don't really care

Sinorice Moss was a recent high pick and he’s buried in the depth chart. Smith is just more valuable in the slot and he will eventually take Toomer’s spot at the Z position. It doesn’t make any sense to make him a starter opposite Toomer and take away the team’s ability to throw the ball downfield. I’m guessing you haven’t seen much of the Giants this year as Hixon has actually looked impressive.

The whole RB rotation depends on who gets hot really. They like Bradshaw in sort of a fourth-quarter closer role. Jacobs wears the defense down, Bradshaw comes in with fresh legs and finishes them off. Ward is more of a third-and-long specialist.

With Jacobs, I’d advise looking over the tape again, because he has plenty of speed. The 4.5 range is not slow for a RB, in fact he’s faster than Bradshaw and Ward.

by number_twentyone on Sep 24, 2008 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

QFT

Jacobs is agile for his size, cuts well, is an exceptional power back, but he’s not agile or fast compared to the average running back.

italics mine

2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.

by Chickadee on Sep 24, 2008 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think Jacobs’ skill set is something we can be too concerned with. The Giants will use any of three RBs, seemingly at will. The one that’s working they will play, including Ward and Bradshaw. I hope we prepare well for all three, as they, as mentioned, will likely try and pound us with the run. We also have to watch out for X-factors like Sinorice Moss or Hixon and the deep-ball, which vs. SF and BUF was horribly defensed .

by Misfit74 on Sep 24, 2008 12:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Jacobs accounts for 50 of NY's 83 non QB rushing plays.

So while Seattle must account for all of Seattle’s running backs, yes, Jacobs is undoubtedly their leading rusher.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2008 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The RBs (carries yards ypc long td)

Brandon Jacobs 50 244 4.9 30 1
Derrick Ward 26 177 6.8 22 0
Ahmad Bradshaw 7 54 7.7 31 1

by Misfit74 on Sep 24, 2008 12:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Last week, Ward accounted for 106 total yards to Jacobs’ 35.

Ward is definately more of a receiving threat, as well. There is no doubt Jacobs is the #1 back, the game-log shows that they are not afraid to feed the hot player. At least last week, that was true.

by Misfit74 on Sep 24, 2008 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bad idea.

Skimming the gamelogs does not tell you anything. In fact, Ward got 8-9 carries and 1-3 catches in all 3 games. Ditto Bradshaw. I have watched some Giants games and they usually give Ward one series per half. Bradshaw one series per game, and Jacobs the rest of the carries.

“Feeding the hot hand” is generally stupid. Especially if you are basing it on the incredibly small sample size of a few early game touches. I hope that the Giants are that stupid and will use guys based on how they did in a few early carries versus a well thought out analysis of which back is better against the hawks in which situations.

by michaelfox99 on Sep 24, 2008 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Using that logic I guess Seattle will start Morris over Jones in the coming weeks, since the coaching staff named Morris the better back going into the season? Jones has been running well, so Holmgren has come out and said that he’ll continue to start. Why? Because he’s been productive.

Ward has 6 receptions to Jacobs’ 2. Ward has averaged 6.8 yards per carry to Jacobs’ 4.9. The fact is that teams, unless they have a player with a super-sized ego, will often go with what works and utilize a player who is producing. We also saw this with Bradshaw last last season.

My point wasn’t ‘who the better back is’. It was that I can see the Giants playing a host of running backs, and I think they will. Jacobs is their best back, which is something I’ve never disputed. We have to be prepared to see all three.

by Misfit74 on Sep 24, 2008 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Our run 'D'

Seattle is 8th in the league in rushing defense (yards) vs. Marshawn Lynch, Frank Gore, and Steven Jackson as the #1 RBs for their respective teams.

71 attempts for 233 yards. That’s 3.28 yards per carry and, as you all know, we trailed by a decent margin in two of those games. We have allowed RBs 15 catches for 138 yards, however. This makes me think Jacobs’ skills would be playing into our strengths, as John talked about in the open. I wonder how much the Giants’ receiving backs will play (still).

That is some impressive run-defense. Let’s hope it continues!

I also wouldn’t mind putting the other Manning on his back a large number of times, after all, isn’t his backup David ‘sack-a-minute’ Carr?

John, what do you think is attributed to our success vs. the run this season? You have mentioned LoJack holding the point better than Tapp, but what else is different from last year? Do you think our opponent’s offensive lines played a large role vs. our personnel?

by Misfit74 on Sep 24, 2008 2:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Seattle's run defense was very good last year.

I’m not certain I’ve seen anything conclusive that says Seattle is better than they were last season.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2008 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LoJack over Tapp is the biggest difference.

One thing I’ve noticed is a lack of big plays by the other team in the running game. Besides the 21(ish?) yard TD by Lynch, I haven’t seen long TDs. It seems like the cutback for a medium long or long run is gone, but that is a feeling not a real comprehensive study of play-by-play and of course it has only been three games. Thing is, it always seemed to be a great back that would make that cut-back against us, and we’ve faced three really really good ones without the overpursuit that caused that. At least to the eye.

by cashless on Sep 24, 2008 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gang tackling....don't forget we are a great gang tackling team.

Josh Who?

by SSreporters on Sep 24, 2008 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

Are you saying we were or were not a gang tackling team last season…this is a discussion between last season and this season. My post was specifically about what I thought was a “difference” between the two.

What was your post saying?

by cashless on Sep 24, 2008 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think he's getting at

that you shouldn’t attribute so much to one player in a gang tackling defense.

Not that I agree 100% but I think I see where he was going with it.

2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.

by Chickadee on Sep 24, 2008 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the response. I didn’t mean to imply we were not good vs. the run last year, just that it appears early on that we may have improved further.

by Misfit74 on Sep 24, 2008 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs