It's funny that for all the screaming and shouting about Plaxico Burress this week, very little of it has actually focused on how it will affect the Giants offense. That would have been unthinkable this time last year, when Burress was the focal point of the passing game, but no one seems to be too worried about how Eli Manning will adapt to a Plax-less world. Some of that's because the Giants have plenty of weapons, but it's more because Burress marginalized himself thanks to injury and behavioral issues.
In fact, Tom Rock of Newsday argues this morning that the Giants passing offense is better without Burress. There are some strong points to his argument. Manning has topped 200 yards in three of the last nine games, all of them played without Burress. It seems counterintuitive, no Plaxico would seem to allow coverage to be more balanced but the numbers don't lie.
Actually, coverage isn't balancing among the other receivers, but focusing on stopping the running game. Instead of keeping safeties back to roll over on Burress' side, teams are now moving an extra body into the box to stop the running game and its working. The Giants are 80 yards off their average over the past two weeks, a major change from the rolling thunder that marked the first half of the season.
So it would seem simply saying no Burress means a better passing attack is cherry picking for a positive spin. The net result may not be a negative one for the Giants, but it's far too early to make a definitive judgment. One thing is for sure, though. If they want to repeat as Super Bowl champions, they'll need to get the running game back in gear.
