Giants, Ravens, Patriots, 49ers (and the Jets): Answers to Readers' Questions Judy Battista, who covers the N.F.L. for The Times, answers questions from readers. Given the questions about Mike Tannenbaum's personnel decisions with the Jets over the last two years, should/will the Jets look at Bill and Chris Polian to replace Tannenbaum as general manager? - Stefan, Montana I don't see that happening at all. First, Bill Polian was easing out of a day-to-day role at the Colts, so it's not clear if he would even want to go back to a full-on general manager's job. And Chris Polian will almost certainly have to go back to some kind of scouting job - he became the general manager because his father groomed him in that particular organization, but he has not worked for other teams and most people around the N.F.L. feel he will have to rebuild his resume now. As for the Jets, the owner Woody Johnson seems to have supreme confidence in Tannenbaum. Obviously, this year turned into a train wreck, but it's hard to erase the fact that they went to two consecutive A.F.C. championship games. Certainly they have to repair the roster - and pay a lot more attention to locker room chemistry, something which Tannenbaum pretty clearly ignored in assembling the current group - but you can't dismiss that they have had success very recently. I wanted to get your thoughts on a curious trend. The Packers" loss last Sunday marked the fifth time in seven years that the team with the best regular-season record lost its first playoff game ("05 Colts, "06 Chargers, "08 Titans and "10 Patriots being the others). Over all, the No. 1 seeds in the A.F.C. and the N.F.C. are just 6-8 in the divisional playoffs since "05, which is bizarre when you consider that all of those games were at home. What do you think accounts for this trend, especially compared to the years prior to "05? - Rick, New York City I don't think there is one unifying factor that can answer for all those instances. Certainly, I don't think home field is always all it's cracked up to be - we see year after year teams go on the road and win. The Packers did it, the Giants did it, the Steelers did it - all the way to the Super Bowl. I do think rust is a factor, even though the Packers have pooh-poohed that idea. But it certainly looked to me as if they had lost their rhythm with such a long layoff from the last time their starters all played together. Even counting their regular-season loss to the Chiefs, that was as bad as the Packers looked all season. Finally, I think postseason success is about being hot and playing your best at the right time of the year. That certainly explains the Giants right now, the Packers last season, the Giants in their Super Bowl run and the Steelers in their Super Bowl run as a wild card. It's fantastic to compile an impressive regular-season record. But as we saw with the Patriots in 2007, being dominant is October does not necessarily mean you're going to be dominant in the playoffs. They started tailing off as teams caught up to their offense. The Giants, on the other hand, were playing their best football of that season at precisely the right moment, as they are right now. The Steelers, on the other hand, were at their most injured, and their offense was at its least explosive, entering the playoffs. That's a bad trend. If it's where the ball gets to that determines line of scrimmage and touchdowns, why isn't the criterion for out of bounds where the ball was caught or carried instead of where the feet were? - donbanff, Calgary I'm not sure I entirely understand this question, but if a receiver catches the ball on the boundary, where his body goes out of bounds is where the ball is placed. With the Patriots deploying two dangerous weapons at tight end - Gronkowski and Hernandez - as well as Welker and Branch at receiver, who will the Ravens double team? Do they use a 3-3-5 defense to bring an extra defensive back for coverage help and risk letting the New England running backs chew up large chunks of yardage? Or do they employ single coverage on everyone and try to bring pressure on Brady? It seems that the Patriots have too many weapons for creating mismatches. Is Baltimore's best hope that Rutgers" Ray Rice has a big game and keeps the Patriots offense on the sidelines? He certainly burned New England's defense the last time they met in the playoffs. - Ted, Austin, Texas ANSWER: All good questions. Wish I were Chuck Pagano, to figure out the matchup problems. Generally, yes, they need a big day from Ray Rice to try to go on long, clock-consuming drives because the best way to contain Tom Brady is to keep him on the bench. The Patriots" secondary has been porous all season, but the defense as a whole played its best game last week against the Broncos, and the Ravens" receivers have trouble getting separation anyway. So expect a lot of running with Rice. Assuming that the Ravens can't keep Brady on the bench forever, they face the same matchup nightmares with those tight ends and Welker that everybody else does. The key to every defense is to pressure the quarterback and the Ravens have a great defense. Ngata has had success manhandling the offensive line and Suggs is a monster. But dealing with those tight ends is a problem - they were not nearly as important to the offense the last time these teams played as they are now. Last year, the Jets beat the Patriots by dropping eight or nine guys into coverage to clog the zones. The Ravens could certainly try that tack, and dare the Patriots to run. John Lynch, the former safety, told me this week he thinks defenses have to be much more physical with the tight ends - they have to bang them at the line of scrimmage to throw off their timing with Brady. Giving them a free release is an invitation to disaster and it would invite the fast-paced offense the Patriots prefer to bury opponents with. At the end of the third quarter in the Giants-Packers game, a player carried the ball out of bounds, and the clock stopped with 11 seconds left. After a few seconds, the clock started back up and ran down to zero. What did I miss? Why did the clock continue running?-gmshedd, Bakcwoods, Pa. I was not at that game so I don't know the answer. Anybody know? Will the Jets get anything for Santonio Holmes? His contract is a disaster of epic proportion. As a Jet fan, I am hoping a Desean Jackson trade could be a way out of this mess. Am I delusional? If they cut him, you can guarantee he is playing for the Patriots at a minimum salary with the Jets salary cap eating the rest. Am I paranoid? Calling this guy a "cancer" is a compliment. To cancer. - kman, New York City ANSWER: I don't think Holmes is going anywhere, either by trade or being cut. His contract is prohibitive so I think the Jets are going to have to make it work somehow. Desean Jackson? He didn't exactly behave like a professional in Philadelphia this year, so I'm not sure he's your answer if locker room chemistry is an obvious problem. While the Giants" defense was undeniably impressive against the Green Bay Packers, was its performance not even more impressive than has been acknowledged, given that both of the Green Bay touchdowns were scored on drives that were kept alive by the two controversial refereeing decisions of the game - the fumble-that-was-not caused by Deon Grant stripping Greg Jennings, and the call against Osi Umeniyora for hitting Aaron Rodgers in the head on third down? Take away those two drives, and the Packers have two field goals. - Deep Blue, New Haven The score would have been even more lopsided if not for those two bad calls. The Packers" offense looked about as out of whack as it has all season - dropped passes and poor throws. When do you ever see that from Aaron Rodgers? And the Giants" pass rush looks better than it has all season and the secondary, decimated by injuries early in the year, doesn't look like the same unit anymore. A remarkable turnaround. You hear a lot of talk about quarterbacks calling audibles at the line of scrimmage after they've sized up the defense but what about the defense changing coverages in response to the audible? Happens? Do defenses call as many audibles as offenses? Given how complex the game has become do some teams audible, and then audible again back to the original play after defensive posturing or does the play clock prevent much back and forth? Are there fake audibles to throw off the defense like fake blitzes to throw off the offense? - warrior ant press, Kansas City, Mo. Last question first: yes, there are dummy audibles designed to throw off the defense - Peyton Manning is a master at that. All that arm flailing and yelling at the line? Some of it is real. Much of it isn't. And it's the job of the defense to figure out which is which in a few seconds. Which is why Peyton so often makes defenses look slow and ridiculous. Yes, defenses change their calls when they size up how the offense comes out. And yes, offenses then change their calls. And yes, finally, the clock does come into play. Very good defenses try to disguise what they are doing - they show one thing, like a blitz, for instance - even if they have no intention of actually running it when the ball is snapped. Again, it's the job of the offense to figure out what is real and what isn't. Isn't it a bit disingenuous for Giants fans to complain about the refereeing in last Sunday's game, given that their team won easily? - Mark L. Milwaukee, Wis. The calls were bad - and the call on Umenyiora came at a very pivotal moment in the game. At the time of the call, there was no way to know that the Giants would win, and win handily. Moreover, inaccurate officiating should never be an issue in any game and it was in this case. And let's be honest here, complaining about officiating is not exclusive to Giants fans. I'm guessing if those calls had gone against the Packers, you wouldn't have liked them any better than Giants fans did. Has an N.F.L. offensive coordinator ever been fired (or decided to "retire") after a season when his team made it this far or beyond? As a Ravens fan, I am hoping there is a precedent. Run blitz or not, throwing on second-and-5, in field-goal range and with 2:48 left in the game seemed like a bad play call to me. - Baltimorean in NY, New York City Ha! If the Ravens make it to the Super Bowl, maybe we can ask Cam Cameron this question. But I agree with you, the play-calling in the divisional game was curious, at best. And it better be a lot better if the Ravens hope to beat the Patriots. But Jets fans are probably comforted by the fact that fans of teams that are making deep runs have issues with their coordinators, too. Are there differences between how the Broncos" defense lined up against the Patriots and how the Ravens" defense is likely to, which may allow for a more competitive event than we saw last Saturday night? Could you describe those differences in some detail?-RobertE, Stratham, N.H. Forget details. The Ravens are just a better defense. And that should make the game more competitive. While the Denver defense was O.K., and has good pass rushers, it is not in the same league as the Ravens. The Ravens" defense finished third in the league in scoring defense and overall defense (yardage). The Broncos were 24th and 20th, respectively, in those categories. The Ravens are more complete and more experienced. Haloti Ngata routinely gives the Patriots" offensive line fits, Terrell Suggs had 14 sacks. They will pressure Tom Brady in a way that he wasn't pressured last week and safety Ed Reed, while nearing the end of his career, remains so dangerous that Bill Belichick can't stop gushing about him. Don't forget the other factor in what could make this a better game, too: the Ravens" offense, for all the lumps it takes, is better than the Broncos." Ray Rice is a force and if he can run on the Patriots, the Ravens should be able to go on long drives that keep the Patriots" offense off the field. And Joe Flacco is a better quarterback than Tim Tebow. He can't make plays with his legs like Tebow can, but he can throw a lot better and the Ravens could take some shots downfield to test a Patriots defense that was porous against the pass all season. Of all the Jets" glaring needs, which one to you is most critical and needs to be filled first? Some choices: pass-rusher, OL depth, linebacker speed, safety, running back, wide receiver, new head coach? - Phil, New York Can I answer with the most ephemeral need: team chemistry and leadership. That would be my first concern, and even though Rex Ryan said it's the easiest to fix, I'm not sure I agree. He didn't even recognize it was a problem until after the season was over. As for on the field needs, there are a lot. The offensive line was a mess, and it torpedoed the running game and Mark Sanchez. They need to develop a pass rush without having to blitz. Safety is obviously a major issue with Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez in the division to terrorize opponents for years to come. I don't think a new head coach is a need. As I said above, you can't ignore two A.F.C. Championship game appearances. Does Rex probably need to change how he does a few things? It might be time to tone down the bluster and crack down on his team, too. But need a new guy? In the Saints-49ers game Saturday, the Saints" opening drive ended on the 49ers" 2-yard line, when a helmet-to-helmet hit on Pierre Thomas appeared to cause him to lose consciousness briefly, and lose the ball. Why was this vicious hit not called by the refs? This cost New Orleans the game. Why did none of the commentators comment on it? - Will Rabb, Pensacola, Fla. Now, Will, come on. That play did not cost the Saints the game. The Saints had five turnovers on the day. And they still had a 32-29 lead with 1:37 left to play. One defensive stand and they would have won the game, long after Thomas went to the locker room. Anyway, Donte Whitner was not penalized for the hit because the tackle was not against a defenseless player. Helmet-to-helmet hits are banned against defenseless players - like a receiver who catches the ball but hasn't had a chance to protect himself or make a move - but a runner with the ball does not fall under that heading. What exactly constitutes this thing that announcers, analysts, reporters and other sports personalities refer to as a "football move," besides the Colts trucking it to Indianapolis? For example, "Thomas was considered a runner because he'd made a catch, turned and made a "football move" before being hit." Is there anything in the rulebook defining what specifically a football move is as opposed to any other kind of move? - zb, New York City Broadly speaking, a football move means the player has either had time to catch the ball and then protect himself (like, say, curling up his body to brace for a blow) or taking steps to run. In the case of Thomas, he had become a runner. Why does the N.F.L. burden the on-field referee with the replay review? Surely someone calmly looking in the booth or at league offices (like the N.H.L.) would have identified the fumble that was and the head-slap that wasn't in the Giants-Packers game. Either of those two calls could have helped Green Bay win a game despite replay. What are the chances the league will pull this function away from the otherwise-busy on-field ref? - Barry, Peoria, Ariz. A good question. The roughing the passer on Umenyiora was a bad call, but not reviewable. I don't know if the N.F.L. will ever get to the point where every penalty is reviewable - games would take five hours if they did. The fumble, of course, was reviewed and, even though there was indecision at the time of the initial call on the field, an incorrect call was made again. As Mike Pereira, the former head of officiating, has explained: these are calls made by humans. Mistakes are made. Might it be easier to look at a call when you're not in the middle of 75,000 screaming people? Maybe. The Competition Committee reviews things like this constantly to make the game more accurate. But one thing I know: pace of the game is very important to them. If they think it would slow the process down, or lead to more second-guessing of officials, by taking replay review out of the crew chief's hands, then I think they would be reluctant to do it. Honestly, what I usually find remarkable about replay is how often the calls made in real time are confirmed by the replay. The mistakes are more glaring, particularly in a playoff game. But over all, replay has actually reinforced how often officials make the correct call in a split second. Can you review the impetus for the N.F.L."s overtime rule? Didn't it used to be that both teams got the ball even if the first to get it scored on the first possession? Just seems silly not to give both teams a chance to score. - Frank Field, Ohio The overtime rules are different for regular season and postseason. In regular season, it's simple: whoever scores first wins. Sudden death. Last year, the rule was change for the postseason, but it was the Denver-Pittsburgh wild card game this year that gave us the first chance to see it in action. The rule is now, generally, that each team gets a possession, unless the first team scores a touchdown. So if the team that gets the overtime kickoff kicks a field goal, the other team gets it. If both teams have a possession, then any score wins the game. Before this, both teams did not get the ball. By the way, I'm not sure I like the postseason overtime rule. I'm not sure I like having a different set of rules for the postseason, but the league feared that a Super Bowl could be decided in overtime some day without both teams touching the ball - especially because kickers have become so accurate - and they thought that was unfair. Shouldn't the Giants be heavy favorites over San Francisco given that we rank third to their fifth in offense, and fourth to their 11th in defense? Also, however, San Francisco is ranked no. 1 against the rush. Do you predict a heavy pass attack? If the Giants go heavily after San Francisco's secondary, might it open up opportunities to sneak in run plays for good yardage? Can our defense stop their rushing attack? What do you think Coughlin et. al. are planning as a strategy? - TC, New York City No, the Giants should not be heavy favorites. The Niners have one of the best defenses in the league - they are especially good against the run - and just rattled an offense that is much more productive than the Giants have been this season. They have a devastating pass rush going against a Giants offensive line that - I think we can agree - is erratic. And their passing game proved that it can stay with one of the most explosive attacks ever, an element that most people did not think the Niners possessed. And the Giants lost to the Niners in the regular season. That counts for something even though I think both teams are better now - and the Giants are much better now. I'm as interested as you to see their strategy and don't forget a muddy, messy Candlestick field might have something to do with it. Rain is expected to start in San Francisco Thursday and continue throughout the weekend. That usually discourages passing games. But it could also slow a pass rush, which isn't good news for either defense. Who does Judy like this weekend and why? - Phil, Michigan Patriots in the A.F.C., because as good as the Ravens" defense is, I just can't see its offense staying with the Patriots. But I don't know if it will be as easy for the Patriots as everyone seems to think it will be. And I'm very undecided in the N.F.C. Any more insight to Ryan Grigson, the Colts new G.M.? - LM, Elgin, S.C. He's steeped in personnel evaluation, which, in the case of the Colts, is a good thing. They have a lot of holes on that roster to fill, and they need to not miss on draft picks. They will pick high in each round and - beyond Andrew Luck - they have to hit pay dirt on quite a few if they hope to rebound quickly. Where are you going to be this Sunday? I'm in San Francisco already. There are worse places to spend a few days. Do you have an assistant - or someone - that helps you prepare for a game that you are going to cover? I'm going to forward this question to my editor - what a great idea! But no, I do not have an assistant. I could use someone just to remind me what hotel I'm staying at. Do you have access to game/s that you cover which are recorded as you write your story? Or, do you write "on the fly"? You're usually writing on deadline from games. During the week, you might be able to go back and watch games for specific things you are highlighting, but at the games, it's all coming from the play and play and stats that are compiled and your own notes. Obviously, I hadn't seen your article when I wrote the above question. Lynch's final thought is suggestive, though. Why not look at collegiate tight ends or converted basketball players to create big cover guys? - ianicol, Colorado Well, because those guys probably want to play offense, too. Tony Dungy told me that his son, a college football player, has a friend who would probably be a standout linebacker. Except he wants to play offense, so he's going to be a running back. Those big guys who might be able to defend tight ends probably want to be tight ends themselves. There's been a lot of talk about the refereeing at the Giants" game, but what actually happens after a situation like that? Does some head referee sit down with a group of the game-time refs and go over the calls? Talk about what might be done differently or how to respond? The refs can't like the criticism or the loss of credibility anymore than any player or coach. - Paul T, New York City The refs don't like it, the league office doesn't like it, nobody likes it. Yes, they review the game. The league office has people who look at the calls. The officiating department looks at all the calls that were controversial and prepares reports on them. Believe me, it does not go unanalyzed. Officials are graded. A game with blown calls is a demerit for them. N.F.L. offenses are showing a trend of developing huge physical athletes as receiving options. Some of these are tight ends and some are wide receivers, but all of them seem to destroy defensive game plans on a regular basis. The big pass catchers seem to have challenged the traditional paradigms of N.F.L. defenses. The defensive backs are too small and the linebackers aren't fast enough to cover the likes of Graham, Gronk, or Megatron. Nickel and dime packages seem universally composed of speedy six footers. Are N.F.L. defenses developing bigger defensive backs or "cover linebackers"? Are they talking about it? It seems like they will have to break the mold and retrain some college players along the way. - ianicol, Colorado See above! A few weeks ago, Perry Fewell was on his way out and the talk was of Steve Spagnuolo getting fired, which happened, returning to the Giants as defensive coordinator and possibly the next head coach after Coughlin. Obviously, things aren't quite the same right now. Win or lose in San Francisco, what are the chances of Fewell being out and Spagnuolo returning? - Vincent, New York I don't see any way Perry Fewell is going anywhere, not with the way the defense has been playing, and he's under contract anyway. Spagnuolo joined the Saints as their defensive coordinator, which doesn't mean he might not eventually succeed Tom Coughlin whenever Coughlin decides to retire. I'm a Jets fan so I have no vested interest (although I'm rooting for the Giants by default). But I think the Packers were negatively impacted by 1) The time off (especially Aaron Rodgers not playing since Dec. 24). 2) The horrible personal tragedy that the Packers suffered with the loss of the coach's son. They seemed distracted, disorganized and not on the same page. - W, New York I agree with the first one - I think they were rusty. As for whether the Joe Philben's terrible personal tragedy affected the team, I would normally dismiss it. Except that Gil Brandt, the former Dallas Cowboys personnel executive who knows a lot more about football than any of us, told me a few days before that game that he thought it would hurt the Packers. Obviously to see someone go through an awful life event is emotionally wrenching, but because he was away from the team for a few days leading up to the game, the offense's routine was probably off. He wasn't at practice, wasn't in meetings, members of the Packers went to the funeral on Friday. It may have made only a slight difference, but Gil thought it would be an issue. Perhaps it was. I agree with w from New York - a bit of rust. I'd also add playing not to lose. Worrying about injury. Not playing out the season aggressively. They were a bunch of head cases out there and couldn't step up to the challenge of the Giants who are like the Packers last year. Nothing to lose. I made this case to Judy in an earlier question session and she seemed to side with playing it cautiously so that the Packers didn't get "Welkered." I wonder if she still feels the same way? - Paul Green Bay, Wis. I do still think you have to guard against having your best players injured, and I think there is a balance that has to be struck. Aaron Rodgers might have looked rusty and out of sync with his receivers but how much worse might they have looked if Rodgers was out of the game completely with an injury? But I certainly think that the Packers" example will be brought up next year if a team finds itself clinching very early. I got HDTV and now I notice that holding could be called on every play. How do officials decide when to enforce it and when not to? - Blake, San Francisco HDTV - the bane of aging actors and actresses and N.F.L. officials! Holding could absolutely be called on almost every play. And how they decide when to call it remains a mystery. Seriously, I have no further explanation, beyond that they call it when it is so obvious it can't be ignored. With all the drama of the recent replay decisions, can you tell me: What does the referee actually see under the hood? Is it the same network footage that we see when they rerun it? Does the ref have control over the shots he sees, the playback speed, etc., or are they requesting it from the networks? What do the upstairs coaches see before deciding whether or not to challenge? Do they get footage on demand (do they summon it to their smartphones?) or do they see what we see as the networks deign to show it? - Wally Dunn, New York, N.Y. The coaches upstairs, I think, are seeing the replays you see on TV or the ones that are shown on the big screens inside stadiums. I do not believe they have special access to different replays in the few seconds they have to decide whether to tell the head coach to throw the challenge flag. The referee sees every available replay from the networks. They can see what they want, and I believe he can ask to see a particular shot over and over if he thinks that is giving him the best view. In other words, he might not necessarily be looking at the same thing you are on television at the same time. A lot has been made of the Ravens" rushing attack, a.k.a Ray Rice. His explosiveness cannot be denied and is sure to be a huge factor come Sunday. But, with the Patriots facing the Broncos strong running game twice within the last four weeks, am I wrong in thinking that that preparation will give our defense the edge? - Jesse, Boston As am I constantly reminded by coaches, the game is all about matchups. So does preparing for Denver's option game - where they had to prepare for Tebow to run almost as much as McGahee - get them more ready for a more traditional running approach with Rice, behind an offensive line that cleared the way for him to go for 1,364 yards - second best in the league? In any event, Bill Belichick's signature is to take away what an opponent does best - in Denver's case, the option, in the Ravens" case, the run - and force opponents to win left-handed. For the Ravens that means taking Rice out of the game and making Joe Flacco, with the worst completion percentage of his career (57.6 percent), win with the pass. I've followed the Giants for many years. They seem to use fewer (none) unorthodox or "trick" plays than any other team. When was the last time the Giants used a fake punt or fake field goal, surprise onside kick, flea flicker, halfback option, or even a double-reverse? Don't even think about the wildcat! Clearly their offensive personnel dictate what they can do but certainly some of these should be possible. They are very predictable in that they don't use the element of surprise. Wouldn't it help if they occasionally threw in some of these trick plays just to keep the other team honest and to force the other team to have more to think about and plan for? Is this a Tom Coughlin preference that he has been consistent about his whole career? - Peter Rock, Baltimore I've never asked Coughlin about his philosophy on trick plays. I'll just throw this out there - why would they want to run trick plays when Eli Manning is having the best season of his career? My feeling on this is why do you want to take the ball out of his hands, and, yes, I feel that way on the occasions when the Patriots run a trick play. Never, ever, take the ball out of Brady's hands. You didn't see the Colts running trick plays when Peyton was playing. Trick plays are fabulous when they work - think of the gutsy onside kick to open the second half of the Super Bowl by the Saints. It changed the entire game. And they are a disaster when they don't work - ask Packers fans how they feel about the surprise onside kick that failed? They are probably not loving that call. Even with the great season Eli has had this year, I continue to hear negative comments (from fans as well as some media). I know I'm getting a little ahead of myself but do you think the negative perception these critics have of Coughlin and Eli will change if Eli continues to perform well and the Giants win the Super Bowl. - G-Fan, New York, N.Y. Eli's reputation took a step backward last year with all the interceptions. Don't yell at me - I know many of them came off tipped passes. But that's the way it is. Clearly, he is having the best season of his career now and if the Giants win the Super Bowl, he will have more titles than his brother - let me know if you find someone who predicted that. And critics had a negative view of Coughlin when the Giants would inexplicably look like a dud in huge games this year. But Steve Young compared him to Knute Rockne yesterday - it doesn't get much better than that.