In the first Redskins-Giants meeting, Washington outgained New York 480-393, including a 248-64 rushing advantage, but was hurt by four turnovers. The 77-yard Eli Manning-to-Victor Cruz touchdown pass with 1 minute 13 seconds left was such a gut punch because it came two plays and 19 seconds after RGIII hit Santana Moss for the go-ahead score. It also represented the low point (unless you can think of another) for a defense that this season has struggled with its pass rush and to cover in the secondary.
Manning finished that game completing 65 percent of his passes (26 of 40) for 337 yards, a touchdown and two interceptions. The numbers, without the 77-yard strike to Cruz, would have been fairly impressive: 260 yards and no touchdown passes.
So did the Redskins have a good game plan defensively that day? Can they duplicate it, and limit the Giants’ attack — the same one that lit up Green Bay on Sunday night for 38 points?
The defense seems to have been a little better lately, in terms of generating a rush and not allowing big plays. Dez Bryant had the 85-yard score in Dallas, but it was 28-6 at that point, so maybe context changes how we look at that one. And in added context, maybe looking great on defense against Philadelphia and Dallas isn’t all that impressive.
But that brings us back to the first Giants game. The Redskins kept a handle on the Giants offense for most of that game. Doesn’t mean they’ll do it again, but it makes the question worth asking.
Here’s what I really want to hear your thoughts on: Should the Redskins be aggressive, and try to pressure Manning into mistakes? Or is it too risky, and would the wiser idea be to let most of the pass rush come naturally, and try to beat the Giants by again stopping the run, and loading up in coverage on passing downs?
Floor’s yours for your thoughts on that, or any other angle on how defensively Washington should approach Manning and the Giants’ offense.