Five thoughts ahead of the Giants-Bills game

1. I never really cared for the term “must-win game" because all games are “must-wins.”

That said, I think this weekend’s game against the Bills is a chance for the Giants to make a statement.

Do they bounce back with a vengeance against the Bills and show the MetLife Stadium home crowd that last week’s performance was not only unacceptable, but it was also an anomaly?

Or do the Giants come out just as flat and leave those who tune in to watch with the “here we go again” feeling that unfortunately has become an annual occurrence with Giants fans over most of the last few years?

The answer to that question is going to tell us a lot about what kind of football team this Giants squad really is.

2. With the Giants receivers banged up and about to face a very strong Buffalo pass defense, I would be absolutely stunned if running back Saquon Barkley isn’t featured more in the game plan.

And by the way, I don’t want to hear about how the opponent knows that Barkley is the centerpiece of the Giants offense as an excuse not to put the ball in his hands more often.

Coaches are paid handsomely to figure out ways to put players into positions to be successful and to figure out creative ways to beat the competition at their own game.

3. Speaking of coaching, I get it that at times you want to try something new to catch the opponent off-guard.

But asking quarterback Eli Manning to perform a designed bootleg or rollout on a critical third- our fourth-down is NOT the time to get cute.

Offensive coordinator Mike Shula explained that the Giants use those plays to create misdirection.

“You want to have things where there is stuff that’s up inside, stuff that’s downhill going right at guys, you need to have stuff that’s going outside,” he said.

“You need to have stuff that’s going to be misdirection, whether or not you’re doing it in the run game or whether or not you’re doing it off of misdirection in the pass game. That stuff was really good to us as we got better at the end of last year, and we feel like it’s going to be good to us again.”

Like with anything else, there’s a time and place to get creative.

But what I still can't wrap my head around is why anyone who has watched Manning play in his career and who knows that asking him to throw on the run is NOT his strength, would ask him to do it on a critical third-down attempt.

4. This is a leftover from last week’s game that kind of went unnoticed, but it exemplifies exactly why I am not a fan of a head coach who calls his own plays.

Special teams coordinator Thomas McGaughey was asked this week if there was any consideration given to letting Pro Bowl kicker Aldrick Rosas attempt a field goal at the end of the first half against the Cowboys last week.

McGaughey, who noted that Rosas had hit a field goal of 61 yards in warmups and who said “indoors, I’d put him against anything” said that he was “waiting on the word” from head coach Pat Shurmur.

Only thing is that word never came because, as McGaughey said, “I think Coach was more focused on trying to get a play.”

So instead of rolling the dice and trying to come away with three points at the end of the half, the Giants got too cute and came up with nothing.

And while you could argue that had they been successful and scored a touchdown then Shurmur would look like a genius for taking the gamble, given how the game had unfolded, there’s probably something to be said about building a little momentum to take into the locker room, especially when you start the next half with the ball.

5. I really don’t see where Shurmur’s response to questions about what he thought about Bills quarterback Josh Allen was a slight against the young man.

If you missed it, Shurmur was asked Wednesday how much in the mix Allen was for the Giants (which he declined to answer) and has Allen developed as Shurmur thought he might (which he did answer).

Here’s what Shurmur said.

“We thought he was a big, strong thrower. A guy that had a chance to be a starter in the NFL, and he has been for them. I think he’s made steady improvements. He’s a very strong-armed guy. He’s helped them win some big games already. Just like any young player, you see where he’ll make mistakes and then correct them.”

Despite an overall positive review, people seemed to hone in on Shurmur’s sentiments that Allen was “a guy that had a chance to be a starter in the NFL, and he has been for them” as a backhanded compliment, the Bills apparently being no exception.

I agree that sometimes Shurmur says things that could have a double meaning when simplicity is the best course of action and that's what sometimes creates confusion.

For instance, anyone remember how he literally handed the media headlines on a silver platter regarding the quarterbacks?

Instead of coming right out and squashing inquiries about Daniel Jones starting in Week 1 after he put forth a solid preseason, Shurmur took the indirect approach by saying, “I’ve said it all along. Daniel, when it’s his time to play is gonna be ready, and we’re gonna continue to get him ready.”

Regarding Allen, I don’t think that was Shurmur’s intent, though, for someone who in the past has poo-pooed hypothetical scenarios, I can see why people thought that’s where he was going.

As Shurmur wasn’t directly involved in Allen’s mentoring and growth because, you know, last year he had a football team he was trying to get to know, he, like the rest of us, were involved in watching from the outside, which is why I think he said Allen “had a chance” to be a starter.

Add us as a preferred source on Google