Radically? That's debatable. The Giants had good games without him. They scored 44 against the Seahawks (and only beat the Bengals 26-23 in OT with him) and scored 34 against Carolina. In fact, his only 100 yard game was against the Skins in week 1 when they scored 16 points. His best game after week 2 was 4 catches for 58 yards against Cleveland. I know he draws coverage, but the Giants are still a good team, running AND passing, without him and it won't surprise anyone if they still win it all.
Now watch them go out and lay an egg against the Eagles
I wouldn't describe Carolina's or Minnesota's passing games as VERY effective either. Their passing games were credible and it was impossible to make either of them one dimensional (Eli killed us when we held the run in check).
And I'm not sure a "true" #1 WR is all that important. The Chargers, Ravens and Eagles looked pretty good without one. As much as I'd like to have a top WR, I think there's better places to spend money. There are a lot of top WRs who didn't make the playoffs this year or probably won't be going that far - (Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, TO, Wes Welker, Roddy White, Greg Jennings, Brandon Marshall, Reggie Wayne, etc.). I think it's more important to spread the ball around (WRs, TEs, Backs, etc.), so the offense can still function if any single player is taken out.
We heard all year long that Moss was being double teamed downfield. If so, why not design more plays underneath to the RBs? McNabb had a 71 yard TD pass on a 5 yard dump off yesterday and Sproles and Cobbs had big plays in the passing game for SD and Miami.
I think the Skins could have had a better passing offense with better coaching and better play calling.
But in the end you're right. It takes balance.