When Giants kicker Graham Gano went down on the first play of the game, after pulling his hamstring while chasing Austin Ekeler on the initial kickoff, it was pretty clear that was going to have an effect on the outcome of the game.
And, while the Giants eventually lost, as Washington’s Austin Seibert drilled seven field goals in the game, I actually think a strong case can be made that Gano’s absence – and the corresponding increase in playcalling aggressiveness by Brian Daboll – made New York more competitive than they otherwise would have been.
Let’s go drive by drive to take a look at the impact:
Giants Drive 1 (5:24, 1st quarter)
This seven play drive ended with Devin Singletary taking a seven yard rush into the endzone over the right side of the line. New York did miss the extra point here, as they leaned on their punter for the kick. They wouldn’t do that again. Impact of Gano’s absence (-1 point).
Giants Drive 2 (10:37, 2nd quarter)
This five-play drive would end with a punt on a 4th and 8 at Washington’s 45 yard line. It’s doubtful Gano’s absence made any difference here.
Giants Drive 3 (1:50, 2nd quarter)
This 10-play drive ended in another Giants’ touchdown. This time it was four yard pass to Malik Nabers. The Giants attempted a two-point conversion at this point, recognizing their kicking deficiencies, and failed to complete the conversion. For the sake of argument, we’ll imagine that the Giants would have kicked – and made – the extra point, had Gano been healthy here. Impact of Gano’s absence (-1 point).
That said, up by 3, going into halftime, the analytics are basically a coin flip on whether to go for an extra point or two in that situation.
Giants Drive 4 (15:00, 3rd quarter)
This drive was four plays, ending in a fumble.
Giants Drive 5 (7:58, 3rd quarter)
This drive was three plays, ending in a punt from the Giants 34 yard line.
Giants Drive 6 (2:47, 3rd quarter)
This ends up being the potentially game-turning drive, in terms of Gano’s absence. The Giants take eight plays, and end up with a 4th and 3 from Washington’s 31 yard line. A 48-yard field goal from here would have been a chip shot for Gano.
At this point, Washington leads by three, 15-12, and I think it’s very reasonable to assume Daboll would have gone for the tie here, if Gano had been healthy. But Gano wasn’t healthy, and Daboll pushed on, converting the 4th and 3. The Giants would eventually go on to score a touchdown, on a 7-yard pass to Wan’Dale Robinson. Now, up by three, in the early fourth, they would buck the analytics and go for two again, and fail to convert.
Interestingly, “the analytics” very much backed going for it in the 4th down situation the Giants found themselves in (4th and 3 from the 31), but even so, it’s fairly unusual in a tight game like this one was.
By my count, the added aggressiveness on 4th down added 3 “post-Gano” points, while the missed conversion subtracted another. Net effect of Gano’s absence (+2 points).
Giants Drive 7 (7:12, 4th quarter)
The Giants would get the ball back once more, this time tied at 18. After eight plays, they drove down to the Washington 22, and were faced with a 4th and 4. Again, if Gano had been healthy here, perhaps they would have kicked the field goal – though the analytics are essentially a toss up. If Gano had hit a field goal here, New York would have been up three, and Washington would have been faced with the decision to tie the game up at the end of regulation, or push for the win in the closing seconds.
Instead, the Giants went for it, and – mercifully – Malik Nabers dropped the reception. Had Nabers caught the ball, the Giants surely would have kept pressing on for the touchdown, and put Washington in a much more tense situation.
Had that been the case, I think the argument that Gano’s absence benefitted the Giants would have been even more straightforward. But this is all about probabilities, and sometimes, even when the odds are in your favor, things don’t work out.
Ultimately, Washington would use their final drive to march down the field and give Austin Seibert the chance to close out the game, which he did. But based on this analysis, Gano’s absence was essentially a “wash,” hurting the Giants in terms of extra point conversions, but benefitting them in terms of allowing them to be unusually aggressive closer to the red zone, swapping fourth down conversion attempts – and, in one case, a touchdown – for field goals.