Let me make this point before explaining myself. I am not a real good x and o guy like some on this site. So my opinion about Fewell might be based on perception rather than fact.
But it seems to me that Fewell's defense is almost entirely dependent on the front four creating pressure. He doesn't seem as willing or maybe as capable as Spagnuolo was in creating different bliz packages to create pressure.
For most of this past season my lack of confidence in Fewell was justified and shared by most.
However, even after the run began, it seemed to me that there were many games, where the Giants defense caught a break in a big spot with a poor throw or drop by the offense.
I keep remember the first Cowboy game, and even the unsual number of poor throws by Rogers in the play off game.
Even in the Super Bowl, during the two touchdown drives by the Patriots it seemed recievers were comming off the line, untouched, going down field a few yards open and running for yards after the catch. There never seemed to be any thought by them of throwing deep and yet the Giants made no adjustments.
Even in the second half, on the Patriots drive before the Giants went ahead, it seems like the Patriots stopped themselves as much as anything.
On the final Patriot drive, 1st play, how far was the receiver going had that pass been thrown just a bit more ahead of him.
I have been trying to convince myself, that the Giants defense really stepped up in the post season, and statistics say they did.
But somehow it didn't pass the eye test.
Tell me where I am wrong.
were shitting on defenses for the majority of the season, at times running up the score. They were a machine. The Packers this year were very good, but they weren't what the Pats offense was in 2007. The Pats shattered records.
There were times this year where the overwhelming majority of fans wanted Fewell fired. They got it going late in the year and had a fantastic year. But the offense was the bread and butter of this team, namely Eli Manning and the passing game. In 2007, it was the defense that bailed us out. In 2011, it was the offense.
The 2011 Packers scored 35.0.
The difference is less than 2 points per game.
that stood up for years. The Green Bay Packers did not.
There is awhole hell of alot more difference than two points per game.
they are a bunch of haters. They wanted TC fired about 4 months ago.
That Spagnuolo defense kicked in about week 3, not week 14
Also whether there were adjustments or not, Spagnuolo's schemes allowed for more variety in creating a pass rush.
Again, there were times with Fewell that it seemed all his eggs were in one basket, getting pressure from the front 4.
Do you remember well timed corner blitzes or safety blitzes from Spagnuolo that could turn a game around.
We didn't see much of that with Fewell. Maybe it was because we were better in the D-backfield in 07, I don't know.
But as I stated in the original post, and got critized for, Fewell's defense, at least for me, didn't pass the eye test in comparison to Spagnuolo.
And why would they matter more than overall scoring output?
The 2007 New England Patriots have the records for:
Most Points in a Season
Most Touchdowns in a Season
Tom Brady took over the Most Touchdowns Passing in a Season
Randy Moss took over the Most Touchdowns Receiving in a Season
Most wins in a regular season
Most consecutive wins in the regular season
Tom Brady set the record for highest completion percentage in a playoff game
Why do individual records or any of the other stuff matter? Great, they were 16-0.. the Packers this year were 15-1.
Rodgers' 2011 and Brady's 2007 also weren't all that different. Brady threw 5 more TD's, 2 more INT's and the yardage was only about 200 yards different.
There's really no major difference between the 2011 Packers and 2007 Patriots offenses. Both were tops in the league in their respective seasons and both produced similar scoring outputs. I also think the fact that we beat the Packers at Lambeau whereas we beat the Pats on neutral ground is worth mentioning.
Spags and Fewell both accomplished the same thing as DC's. 4 impressive playoff wins and a Championship. There are arguments for both.. but I don't think Spags has some massive edge and I think people tend to overrate him a tad.
it won.... period... style points dont matter... winning is winning..
But the Pats were better. More PPG and a shit ton of all time NFL records to boot. You asked what records, I supplied them.
29 points total over a 16 game span. I don't know, maybe you view that as significant. I don't.
And we're talking about one game. The 2007 Giants allowed 65 total points in the playoffs.. the 2011 team allowed 54.
They both won the SB, so the difference we are talking about is small. But if we're talking about slight edge or just plain old edge, you have to go with Spags. Beating an 18-0 team an all time great offense clinches it.
Also, the 2007 Cowboys were the best Cowboys team of this generation. We went into their house and beat them. Ditto for a very good Packers team in Lambeau in minus 30 degree weather.
..while the 2011 Falcons were 7th. The Bucs scored 14 on us and the Falcons scored zip.
It's pretty even, IMO.
that our 2007 defense held the Pats' offense to 14. Nothing.
the Pats averaged more PPG and broke NFL records. They were the more succesful team and offense.
It's your opinion. It's not a fact.
Like Fats said earlier in the thread.. it's a pretty hard comparison to make. You can't really just isolate DC's because there are so many other factors that come into play. For whatever reason, though.. it seems like people forgot that Spags had his warts just like Fewell did.
And why does one game define the entire run? Great, the Pats averaged a whopping 1.8 PPG more than the 2011 Packers. The other 3 games don't count?
But alot of longstanding NFL records held by NFL greats. We are talking about the most dominant offense in NFL history. Our 2007 defense held them to two TDs in the SB. A game in which we were the universal underdog and were picked to lose by multiple TDs by just about everybody.
It may seem like harping on it, but that point needs to be drilled home. It was that big of an achievement. I'm not trying to paint Spags out to be perfect. We are discussing which DC is better, I belive that his run here was more impressive than Perry's thus far. If Fewell wins another SB with the Giants, the better DC is undoubtedly him.
I'm not saying they aren't close. But I do think Spags' run was alittle more impressive than this one. Yes, a big part of that is beating the Pats. But the 2007 Dallas team was the best Dallas team of the 2000s and the Packers were damn good as well. Hell, we were the underdogs in the Bucs game!
Anyway, I apologize if I came off rude at all. That wasn't my intention. I just feel pretty strongly that defensively, 2007 was more impressive than 2011.
I'm just glad both ended up DCing us to a ring.
But let's not talk about facts when dealing with such subjective criteria in a debate.
Yes, the pats did do all that stuff. Is that the criteria for having more confidence in spags over fewell? I mean look at the thread start.
'Even in the Super Bowl, during the two touchdown drives by the Patriots it seemed recievers were comming off the line, untouched, going down field a few yards open and running for yards after the catch. '
Sounds like the two TD drives in SB42.
arc's right that there's a nostalgic god-like status given to spags.
Spags was amazing here. But he was no Belichick. His time with both us and the Rams has proven that. But he's still good
Fewell had a very good first season here and now he capped it with a shitty regular season (where injuries may or may not have presented a tough challenge depending on who you ask) followed by an amazing run at the end. He's no Belichick. But he seems to have proven himself pretty well.
The debate is subjective, both guys have earned lots of merit, imo. I don't necessarily know if Spags is significantly farther ahead of fewell.
our offense was much better this year than it was in 2007.
I agree with alot of your post. The only thing I would disagree with is how the Pats' offense looked in both SBs. In 2007, our defense had contstant pressure on Brady. We completely threw off his rhythm, rattled him, made him hear footsteps from behind, etc, whatever saying you want to apply. We were the only team all season long to do that to the Pats that year.
This year our defense did perform very well in the SB. However, in the 2nd and 3rd quarters the Pats offense basically did what they wanted. Brady completed 16 passes in a row, a new SB record. They never looked that good in SB 42.
I don't even really prefer one to the other so even though it seems like I'm arguing that Fewell's was better, I'm not. I have no problem with anyone who thinks Spags' was slightly better.. it's fine, it's a fair opinion. I'd also have no problem with anyone who argued the opposite.
I think solid arguments can be made both ways but again.. there are so many factors that come into play that it's hard to really isolate it enough to make a fair, fact-based comparison.
Either way, I think they're very similar... hell, they even defeated the same team in the Super Bowl with the same QB's and same HC's on both sides. Bottom line.. the Giants are World Champs again and that's all that matters.
It is close. If Fewell wins another here, he gets my vote for being the better DC without a doubt. You can go with either one because they both have a SB victory under their belts. I just tend to give Spags the edge because of beating the 18-0 Pats. People can go either way, though.
but I'll be honest, this SB felt like such a carbon copy of 42 that it was disturbing me.
Save for the 16 straight passes, this: 'However, in the 2nd and 3rd quarters the Pats offense basically did what they wanted.'
When the pats scored their two TDs in 42, it looked the same, like they did exactly what they wanted.
Save for 5 points, (pats FG, pats safety) those games were frighteningly similar.
We're swerving off topic a little bit with this post but what the hell, it was fucking eerie.
I'm greedy, I want another one.
Pierce was Spags' field general ....
Blackburn was brought back from the abyss, and accomplished the same thing for Fewell.
Some here, can't wait for Goff to come back. I'll tell you one thing, as flawed as Blackburn has been in the past; he played (especially pass defense) and directed traffic as Goff never has.
Another very good thing the happened - To took Rolle into his office, and quietly encouraged him to chill.
Spags was the perfect DC for that game against the 2007 Patriots and their vertical game.
Fewell was the perfect DC against the Pats this past year for the kind of offense they ran this year.
I would argue that Boley was the "field general" this year moreso than Blackburn.
Having a savvy guy like CB definitely helped.. but Boley was calling the shots all year (aside from when he was injured, obviously).
The SB was another example of this. The Pats didn't score after their first drive of the second half. IMO, this is a big thing. He was out coaching the opposition, and we saw this in other games too.
look this is a subjective argument. Its obvious no facts will skew someones opinion. To me, I'll take Fewell. He relies less on the blitz (which is the defensive version of the big play), and gets the same results. Also I do give him an edge in the SB because his D shut down the Pats the second half, while Spags let the Pats score with 2 minutes to go (which could have easily been the game winner). Also because of this I discredit this whole "better offense in 2011 thing", because Spags was bailed out by the 2007 offense.
offense in 2007 and a lot of references to these records they set. If that 2007 team didn't do that, the 2011 Packers would have owned the same records based on their performances this year, and Gronkowski could be substituted for Moss for receiving records.
To arc's point, the difference between the two offenses is so slight that arguing that Spags is a better DC because he beat NE and Fewell only beat GB is asinine.
Spags might very well be a better DC than Fewell. My personal opinion is that it is too difficult and close to tell right now, and it certainly won't be decided because Spags beat a supposedly better NE team.
Spags also did nothing since leaving the Giants, and his defenses have been average to bad.
People acting as if they can prove who the better DC is are the ones fooling themselves. There is no clear cut answer here - nor does there need to be. One ring for each is good right now.
Two different styles, two different rosters. Secondly, did Spags have anywhere near the injury situation that Fewell had to deal with this year? I can't remember.
Both defenses faced the cream of the crop in the playoffs and won. The end results were the same, and that's all that matters.
And it is frustrating because I might be dead-wrong--yet I can't get over it.
but I definately felt similar about Spags in 2007 before he won it all.
That defense had some major hiccups that year. Anybody who acts like Spags walked in here Day 1 and dominated isn't remembering correctly.
We remember that high note that he went out on.
but I wonder what the sentiment was about Spags after we started 0-2 in 2007 and gave up 80 combined points in those two games?
of what we're going to see in the near future. I think the name of the game on defense is going to be to try to get to the QB with three or four guys, and cover in numbers. It's the logical way to get past the rules restrictions placed on the passing defense. Both the Giants and Pats did it in the Super Bowl with great effectiveness, and the result was two high powered offenses combining for 38 points in a game with 1 turnover.
I think people are pretty dismissive of the cornerback injury situation the Giants went through this season. As someone mentioned before, it wasn't just TT but solid roleplayers including Coe and Johnson. The amount of missed games by guys in the CB rotation was extremely high according to one of the advance stats websites. They were playing the Safety Rolle who was a bust as CB at nickle corner for a good chunk of the year.
Add don't forget to add in all the following:
the diminished play of that Fraud Tuck,
the weak linebacker play before Blackburn returned,
and the lack of a running game from the offense to help keep the defense off the field.
Fewell in my opinion was doing a decent job before the turn-around and then turned in some very good work once more pieces came back.
It just seems to me that you don't have as much confidence in Fewell as you did/do Spags because he doesn't run the type of defense YOU prefer. You're saying that Fewell didn't run as many blitzes and stuff to create pressure...well, that's not really what his defense is based on. You basically asking him to do something that's not his game and then faulting him for it when it helped to produce the same result (a Super Bowl win).
that says the Giants blitz 34% of the times during the regular season but only 17% of the time during the playoffs. Hmmmm. I also seen other articles that had the Bears, Jets, Eagles, Saints, and Rams blitzing close to 50% of the time. The only high percentage blitzing team who defense I really respected was the Raven. A few articles on NFL.com stated that teams were beating the blitzs with a a spread package which also was brought up in this thread.
You can find those articles with a google search Link
- ( New Window
the last point you made, is actually a very good point.
He did get the same results, but I guess I'm wondering, what happens if the front 4 doesn't get there, will there be answers?