This may have been discussed on some of the rant threads, but I really don't care to venture into them..
His point about Eli's next snap call always following "Omaha" gives an advantage to the D in terms of getting a nice jump, I'm not sure is correct..If it is, then why wouldn't we see this and change things up?
Doesn't make sense that the Giants would not be aware of this if true..
What were your impressions when hearing this(ad nauseum, btw)?
|people aren't realizing the significance
MindlessBanter : 10:48 am
it is completely valid. and it doesn't only tell teams when we're going to snap it, it also tells teams when we're done doing our pre-snap reads and the play is in stone.
Having the play "set in stone" gives nothing away to the defense and it is no different than just going up to the LOS and running the play from the huddle.
And it doesn't tell the defense when we snap it. If eli goes "Omaha - hut" on one play, chances are the next he goes "Omaha - Omaha - hut" on the next. The ball is being snapped on the hut, and that is not easy to time if you are a defender.
because besides last night, I can't remember the last time the Giants had a false start.
is really nothing new, we been using Omaha call from day 1. I am sure if it comes an issue we change it. Problem solved. It's not a big deal in the scheme of things. I am more worried about a 3rd and 2, 50 yard pass attempt instead of a terminology issue, which can be changed in practice if need be.
are going to grow legs and walk far more distance than they should like Sirigussa's dumb Jacobs comment?
so you think the reasons stated by Collinsworth as to WHY we were "smart" to pass a lot downfield, were incorrect?
Jacobs missed a TD opportunity last night in the 4th quarter when he decided to change direction and go to the right on 3rd and short instead of just plowing ahead into the endzone. Result was a 4th and 2 and FG.
just sayin. =)
He had valid points, but 3rd and 2 you want to go deep like that, I don't really agree with that. We have so many options of plays we can run. In fact, the past games have indicated the various options we have, and throwing a deep pass like that, is something I wasn't a fan of.
1. I would guess we lead the league or are at least in the top 3 for drawing defenses offside.
2. Eli has been sacked a whopping 6 times.
I don't think it's an issue. So somtimes a guy gets lucky or has a good night... I think the benefits far outweight the negatives.
Agree..And yes, I'd have to think we are up there amongst the leaders in drawing teams offsides..Right up there with Peyton probably
is a luxury not for teams who are down by 10 late in the game. ahead...sure. even down 3 with lots of time left, sure. down 10...no way
Omaha does not indicate the snap count. It only indicates that the next snap count is live. For example, the snap count could be on two and Eli may come to the line and say, "hut-hut" but the rest of the offense will ignore it the signal. The word "Omaha" followed by the "hut-hut" is when the ball is snapped. Omaha give no indication what the snap count is. The most it does is give an indication as to when the defense should start paying attention to Eli's signals.
was down to 1 sec when the ball was snapped. I'm guessing this is easier to key off than "Omaha". Having both, of course, is far better.
Being predictable on the snap count isn't necessarily a bad thing. He has been successful drawing the defenses offsides.
is really the issue. I thought CC was just off on that. I do think he may be correct that it keys when the snap count is live.
As I said above, when you know that info, it doesn't let you jump the count....what it does is allow your guys to be jumping all over the place with a reasonable sense of when the ball is gonna be snapped. When you have a guy like Wilson or Antrelle Rolle, who have the speed to be in one place pre-snap and bail out just prior to be in another place entirely after the snap, that bit of info can make all the difference in toying with a QB. THAT was the issue...not bertrand berry getting a good jump.
As I said elsewhere, that's why I would have liked to see some quick snaps/no huddle.
I would say it's because the Giants constantly snap at 1 or less, but a dlineman isn't really in position to know that, unless the can read the crowd's growing disgust
Collinsworth looks kind of nerdy and therefore gives his bashers the incorrect impression that he doesn't know 50 times more about football than they do.
but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this as a concern, simply because of Coughlin's comments that sometimes we need to just go ahead and run our play. It seems clear to me that Coughlin is concerned about reads and counters and I wouldn't be at all surprised to some day learn that teams were waiting for Omaha before getting into their proper defensive alignments.
in the sense that "Omaha" means that the ball will be snapped on the next "hut." that much, i thought was obvious.
it's NOT valid in the sense that i was under the impression that 99.9% of the football-watching world was aware of this PRIOR to last night's game, most significantly, every single coach and player in the NFL. collinsworth might as well have pointed out that you get 4 downs to move the ball 10 yards.
this is NOT a secret. Eli uses it when the clock is running down, as he acknowledges not having enough time to go through his normal cadence before the play clock expires. in essence, it's an audible for the cadence, meaning that rather than "on 4" (for example) or on the 4th "hut," we're now going to use the first "hut" because i don't have time to say "hut" four times without getting a delay of game penalty.
He'll "Omaha" and then hut hut HUT, so no.
certain that's wrong, shep. guess we should play closer attention next time. last night, it was "Omaha, Omaha, HUT" and the ball was snapped every time.
A LOT of QB's use the Omaha cadence... this is a non story...
just mean that the snap count is "ONE"...???
I'll watch for this tomorrow but I'm sure I've heard him throw a couple huts together after an Omaha.
Sure would be stupid to call out Omaha three times to let them know we'd better snap it on the first Hut.
i'll check back after you've watched again. i'm almost certain it's the first hut after each "Omaha" call.
as far as I can tell, you're correct.
no, seriously. i think we need to mix it up a bit. but again, this wasn't exactly a revelation by collinsworth, and with 1 second on the playclock, being mysterious isn't a high priority.
there has to be a point to calling it, meaning it likely signifies something (like stop motion) other than simply "snap it on one".
Omaha should be least of our concerns. Eli has done a great job with the snap count before the snafus last week.
And while I no longer hate Collingsworth I believe he's overrated. It took me several years to get over his BS during SF meltdown. I was screaming "he was eligible and this asshole doesn't know the rules".
because the defense still doesn't know WHEN Eli is going to snap the ball. He can say 2 OMAHA's or 20 OMAHA's and it'll make no difference because there's no timing involved - it's whenever he says "hike".
why does eli say "hut, hut" several times before he says "Omaha"?
answer: because he's trying to see what the defense is showing. the hope is that any blitzers will show their hand a little bit and the defensive alignment can be dissected.
another: if defenses know that the Giants aren't going to hike it until after the "Omaha" call, will they show their true intentions beforehand?
and another: if defenses know that eli is using their alignment before he says "Omaha" for the basis of his line calls, is it possible that they might feign a completely false alignment to try to bait the Giants into running a play that plays into their strength?
when Eli calls Omaha... the defense is stuck in whatever look they were "showing"...
oh, so a guy who was acting like he's coming on a blitz has to come on a blitz? and guys who made no indication of coming on a blitz cannot suddenly blitz? and a safety lined up in the box cannot quickly back up into coverage?
no matter what the cadence is.
Look... the New York Giants are a professionsl football organization. They have been running this cadence since Tom Coughlin / Eli Manning arrived. During that time they have been one of the most successful regular season teams, made the playoffs every season, and, oh yea have won a freggin Super Bowl against what experts were calling the best team of ALL FREGGIN TIME.
Do you really think this stupid OMAHA crap is a problem???
Do people really think that a HC like Coughlin, who has been around the league for nearly 3 decades; an OC like Gilbride who has been around just as long; and QB like Eli Manning, who by all accounts is an excellent student of the game, and has an unmatched pedigree as an NFL QB... are missing something this simplistic and tipping off defenses???
But some fans on a message board, many of whom I am not sure how they dress themselves, are all over it.
every season is the problem here..*Grin*
But we could always go talk about Megan Fox if thast's better.
would almost be as relevant to the success/failure of this team.
makes a difference to the team, not sure why it matters.
Eli doesn't call Omaha on every play. Sometimes he calls out the huts and then the ball is hiked. It is only when he is changing or feigning a change that he does it.
Again, even if the opposition knows the ball will be snapped on hut, they have to first figure out that Omaha wasn't said, so it gives them no advantage.
By the way, he best answer in TC's press conference this week was when a reporter asked if running the play clock down to zero gave the defense an edge at jumping the snap clock and he said that it would only if the DL had extremely long necks to be able to see the clock from their stance.
You see, things that seem like valid questions from fans and reporters make actual football people laugh at the stupidity of them.
they can see the play clock just fine.
I'm just sayin'.
I'm sure that the first time some numbnuts who gets an offside resulting in a first down for the offense explains that he was going off the game clock as an excuse will be sitting next to the timekeeper afterwards
unless they decide not to watch the ball being snapped.
you might have a point... but since he does not... any defender not watching the clock instead of the ball is going to be caught flatfootted at the snap more times than he gets that insignifigant jump by going as the clock hits zero...