Collingsworth's point on Eli's "Omaha," is it valid?

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.

The counts change.

.

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.

straight!

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?

answer: no

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?

answer: yes

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?

i disagree

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.

Bastid!!!

.

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...