Full disclosure -- I'm not an x's and O's guy. All I got going for me is I'm old enough to have seen a lot of Giant games.
Sunday night, I saw something very different. Very, very different. Chip Kelly's offense seems, to these untutored eyes, to be a nightmare.
Yes, we can find flaws, glitches, offensive stamina problems, but Kelly is throwing something that's consistently different -- from the no huddle, to putting two tackles wide left. What the eff is that?
Okay, I love Coughlin, I adore Eli and the wideouts, and the still (unfufilled promise of Wilson, Hynoski, etc.) I'm on the fence about Fewell and don't know what to make of Gilbride.
However,our offensive plays look boring, pedestrian and predictable, even if executed properly, i.e., what the hell is the problem in the Red Zone? What? It's been that way for years. The players are good, and in some cases exceptional, so Gilbride means to tell us that they're not executing? They're not executing the same ol' shit, that the defense can sniff out.
We have good backs, but I don't see the holes I see almost regularly from other teams. I watched wide open spaces at the LOS and wondered how they did it? Are their players THAT superior. I see Witten and other TIght Ends patrolling the middle as if they're on an island. Can that be a result of superior players or play design? I think play design -- Anish and other football smart guys might answer this, if they care to.
And San Franciso does it as well. How soon will other teams adopt this kind of offense? We can't stay still, but with this generally conservative bunch at the top, I'm afraid we will.
Personally, to my eyes, this "new" approach is going to kill us. Do we think Fewell is up to defending it? Do we think he can put in the proper players to handle the no-huddle? Do we think Gilbride will shed some of his play design and create some new ones? I dunno. Doesn't look like it.
End of rant, thanks for listening.
Signed,
Very, very frustrated in Durham AND Montreal.
San Francisco's Offense - (
New Window )
The Giants end up top 10 in points scored pretty much every season under Coughlin. They likely will again.
that said, defense is my only concern with the giants of 2013 as i fully suspect we are top 8 in points this year.. if not higher.
But the frustration is there. You see the potential but it's frustrated more often than not. And it makes you wonder that if this style requires perfect players to function perfectly, where they're going to be found?
Was I imagining things or did our offense produce a number of big plays, have 3 WR's with 100+ yards and put up 30+ on the scoreboard? If not for the turnovers, we could have put up 40.
People love shiny new things. Giants offense.. boring. To hell with results.
I'm also pretty sure that the fast-pace hurt the Eagles almost as much as it hurt the Redskins.
Also, the Patriots seemed like a passing juggernaut by the time they rolled into XLII and the Giants proved that hard nosed, pressure-the-qb defense can stop any kind of super offense. I'm glad the Giants were a part of those two games.
But these new offenses are legitimate and these teams are good. And if the argument against them is that they haven't won a Super Bowl, it's a ridiculously flimsy argument. It's the same as "Peyton Manning can't win a Super Bowl." That was an argument that was made. And then he did. And the argument evaporated instantaneously. One of these teams is going to win a Super Bowl last year. It was very close to happening last year. San Fran has made 2 NFC CGs in a row. Seattle was one of the best teams in the league last year.
And really, should winning the SB be the primary metric for evaluating this concept and these players? There were good teams last year with good offenses that featured read option and mobile QBs. They were successful. Maybe it will all vanish tomorrow, but it sure doesn't look that way.
Plus, if the Giants next QB is mobile, almost everyone here will do an immediate 180 anyway.
However, I have serious doubts about how well this will be working in weeks 14-17 + playoffs.
Running 80 plays in an 11 game college schedule wherein 7 of the 11 are blowouts is one thing. But increasing the number of snaps by 30% over the course of 16 games means increasing the number of hits your skill guys take.
Bryce Brown is going to have to get WAY more carries or McCoy will go off an Eddie George size cliff at about week 13.
C'MON MAN!!!!
And while I thought the Eagles offense looked interesting, I am not concerned about it long-term.
Link - ( New Window )
Oh and both styles require your qb can't get hurt. Oh and the newer offense requires your qb to get hit in a game about as many times as the qb running the tried and true method gets hit all year.
Pass
Granted, it's the first game, but the Redskins looked shocked out there, linebackers drifting around before the snap.
And as for scoring points, yes we do. Then what is the problem with the red zone that everyone here has been complaining about?
This isn't running track. It's football. People get hurt.
D still wins championships.
Personally I really enjoy watching these new offenses operate. The 49ers in particular are really good to watch. I think there needs to be a next step in the evolution for it to really take hold in the long term: the read option teams must be willing to abandon the idea of the franchise QB (and the accompanying cost) and instead be willing to go two or even three deep at QB just as they often do at running back.
If I'm the 49ers, Redskins, Eagles, etc. I'm keeping three mobile QBs on the team and drafting them far more often than I traditionally would. I also wouldn't dream of giving Kaepernick, RG3, Vick, etc. another contract. It's a position I would consistently occupy with rookie contracts.
In the NFL everyone is an athlete, fast, strong, and smart (many of them). Hence this nonsense doesn't survive.
Look at their 2012 schedule
7 home 5 away games
They were finished before the end of November (except the fiesta bowl)
really not the best competition out there. Is it exciting - Yes. sustainable against quality opponents with built in parity - probably not.
Oregon football 2012:
(Times TBA)
Saturday, September 1: Arkansas State at Oregon
Saturday, September 8: Fresno State at Oregon
Saturday, September 15: Tennessee Tech at Oregon
Saturday, September 22: Arizona at Oregon
Saturday, September 29: Oregon at Washington State
Saturday, October 6: Washington at Oregon
Thursday, October 18: Oregon at Arizona State
Saturday, October 27: Colorado at Oregon
Saturday, November 3: Oregon at USC
Saturday, November 10: Oregon at California
Saturday, November 17: Stanford at Oregon
Saturday, November 24: Oregon at Oregon State
Which isn't to say the Niners and Seahawks offenses aren't very good to great, or that they're not here to stay. But any good offense when combined with a strong defense is going to make a good team. I'd like to see how one of those offenses holds up with a mediocre or worse defense, like the Eagles might end up running (also too soon to tell).
I think the 49ers can win it all...they are exceptionally well rounded. But their QB has to survive. Will he take more hits? They may be adjusting so he doesn't.
This may be the first time in a while that a Super Bowl loser is viewed as having a much stronger team the following season than the winner...and the big difference is that Flacco's contract gutted the Ravens (especially on defense). Kaepernick is still making peanuts, allowing them to bring in someone like Boldin.
Go Terps - interesting points about how you would occupy the QB position, but I ultimately disagree. Part of what makes CK and RGIII successful thus far is that they also have the ability to sit there, read defenses and accurately pass the ball. Quite frankly, I think both could just as easily be classic drop back QB's. Now, Vick (and to a much greater degree, Tebow) on the other hand has been much less successful when he is forced to sit in the pocket and not move around.
Going with your theory would much more likely lead to Tebow's and Vick's as opposed to CK and RG and ultimately take away the real threat to that type of offense.
Griffin looks beat up and its week 1. Vick was limping around the field by the end of week 1. This division is ours for the taking.
The trick is to abandon the traditional idea of a franchise QB, face of the franchise, etc. That's going to take some courage from a GM.
I think we're going to see some QB contract deflation soon anyway, regardless of pocket or mobile QB. The Bradys and Rodgers of the world will still get their $20 million, but teams have been giving out too many big deals to good, but not great QBs. Right now Kapernick and Wilson are as good as anybody in the 2nd tier of QBs and SF and Seattle have an extra $15 million or so to build their team.
I definitely agree on emphasizing the backup QB position and the QB pipeline for these teams. And it's possible to do because the NCAA is producing a lot of guys who can run and throw and have experience in the read option system. It's not that different to how teams treat every other position.
1) As the athletes get faster at every position (including QB) it makes sense to try to isolate them with the ball in space
2) The rules changes favoring offense make such a change make sense...particularly the enforcement of the 5 yard contact rule
3) There's a big trickle up effect from college football. If the players in college excel at it, it stands to reason you'd do in the pros what the players do best.
I think the offense is here to stay. I like it, as I see it as the way to bring power running back into the game.
And last year's problems were also related to Nicks getting hurt and Randle not yet developed into our 3rd weapon to replace Manningham.
Look what our passing game can do with a healthy Nicks, Cruz, and Randle now.
But our running game has been mostly DOA since early last year, which has killed us in the red zone. I don't care who the OC is - if we can't consistently run the ball and score from the 1 or convert 3rd and 2, we're fooked
You said even better what I was trying to say. I don't agree that the QB position can be become 'disposable' in the way that you change them every few years. IIf you are going to run that type of offense, IMO, it is only truly viable with a quality QB running it (Kaepernick,. RGIII, Wilson).
That said, the idea running this Offense and not having a mobile QB as a back up is dumb (see Philly).
That was a conservative defense.
If you want Kelly's crappy 15 point offense, that's your business.
I agree I'd like to see the Giants use more 3wr - spread the field more, caters to the Giants current skill players.
Also agree with Eric - red zone issues are because they KNOW we don't run well.
Exhibit A will always be Super Bowl XXV. Jim Kelly and the Bills' were one of the precursors to these new offenses, and we beat them bc we held the ball for 39 minutes that night
A lot of you have pointed out our offensive totals. I guess my post made it seem like I'm criticizing the offense in general. I'd like to clarify. Except for the red zone and the running game, I'm thrilled with Eli and our offense. We WILL put up points.
Reading all this over, I think I'm worried more about our defense facing such schemes, primarily in the ability of Fewell to defend against them.
I also realize that we'll have game film to work with, whereas it seems the Skins got blindsided. They'll make adjustments, of course. I just don't want us to look helpless out there.
I mean, you can just as easily say a lot more pocket passers retire without a single playoff win in their resume than running QB's do.
It goes back to HS, too. You have some high schools running shotgun spread read-option offenses, whereas in the past it was unthinkable to have a 16 year old QB shouldering that responsibility. Rookie QBs are getting to the pros with an incredible number of reps and pass attempts compared to years past, so they're going to be better off the bat because they're veterans compared to years past.
But that experience is also taking place, predominantly, in a certain offensive style. If that's what is getting sent to the pros, the pros will have to make due with what they get. It also likely makes the Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Lucks of the world even more valuable, if they're to become a rarer commodity.
In fact quite the opposite.
predictable, yes, in spots - red zone, short yardage, 2nd down after a 1st down incomplete pass, but I don't find anything boring about Eli, the receivers, the excitement of Wilson before he fumbled the 2nd time.
I also agree though some innovation from a fresh mind isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
the Eagles defense impressed me more than their offense though. Until they got a big lead and sat on it.
Vick took a beating in that game yesterday and it is week 1. His OL can't sustain it. These players are much bigger than spread college OL. Jason Peters is 330 after losing weight. Herramens is 325.
RG3 is not healthy from the beating he took in his 1st year in the league.
Writing this off as a flavor of the month is not accurate.
Its a stout defense.
How anyone can conclude after one good half of offensive football by the Eagles that he has seen the future, is puzzling to me.
By the way, the Giants in their boring, traditional offense, put up 31 points, while committing 6 turn overs. With all the flash and speed, where is the evidence that Kelly's offense is more effective than the traditional good offenses in the NFL?
Coaching HS ball for years, I've seen the trend up close.
In the 80s, we threw the ball more than any team in our league and we averaged 10 passes a game. The last year I coached there were HS teams throwing 35 passes a game and mainly out of the spread.
The passing skills have improved but the QBs haven't learned how to take a snap under center, nor the footwork involved in passing from under center.
For a pro team to take chance on a rookie and have to spend a few years teaching him the basic footwork from under center doesn't make sense financially.
The kid's ready to play a year earlier if you leave him in the gun and let him play a variation of the spread.
I think we'll see the NFL go with more spread in the future, but the schemes will be far more sophisticated in the passing game than what the colleges are running.
The systems will be blended.
We all know that the Giants, when they get down there, are going to waste x number of downs trying to stuff the ball in. This would be defensible if it ever happened but it doesn't with enough frequency to provide reinforcement.
Take a shot with a play that statistically has a chance of working with each down. You do not see high-powered teams wasting downs in the red zone. They go for the 7.
Early 90s Houston Oilers
Vick with Atlanta...
All fads, no championships, all gone. This too, shall pass.
In the NFL they are not going to survive. Used strategically I think it makes alot of sense but as a scheme I think it is going to get several QBs absolutely destroyed. On the basis I am quite happy they are running it in PHI.
I am content with our O. If we have a weakness it appears to be up front and we haven't had a good run blocking Oline for years. I am much more worried about our D because I think they are less talented than they were a year ago and that was before losing Brown. We are going to have to win alot of games in a shootout. If nothing else it should be fun watching Eli put up 6000 yards this season.
There was a time when people said that it would be impossible for a team that couldn't run the ball to be successful. People don't say that too much anymore (or if they do, they don't know what they're talking about). Things change. Not every new thing works, but some do.
Go Terps : 2:22 pm
A big reason they have strong defenses is that they aren't allocating huge cap space to a QB.
It will be interesting to see how the Niners approach Kaepernick's next contract. Will he get a hefty contract extension? Will he end up with something more reasonable, or would they even consider moving to a rookie they draft hoping they get similar performance at a low cost?
I think your other point is the closest - the jump from college to the pro's being easier, combined with the fact that with limited OTAs teams have even less time to prepare than before. This is a natural advantage that can't be underscored.
I don't think the offense will be dismissed as a fad, but I don't put it in the unstoppable category either. Just like the offense players have played in it and have an advantage, so have the defensive players. Defenses will adapt and evolve to meet the threat. The rules do benefit this style of offense, so it's possible that scoring goes up a bit but probably not out of control.
There is a reason Vick & RG# get hurt - they are not big. The NFL QB is protected in the pocket - he is not outside of it.
The majority of these guys in college are smaller guys.
We have the ability in our offense to turn games around quickly. Big plays. Gashes. It is not dink am dunk. Sometimes a checkdown is necessary. But it ain't out offense and Eli clearly prefers to hit our WRs and loomed good doing it after shaking the rust off.
I'm not convinced these offenses are truly goi g to be sustainable. Ours is. It's proven.
It's true we can only go as far as the defense takes us -- and they have to face the eagles, red skins, and so forth. Well see how they respond
It definitely bodes well.
They matched 1/4th of the Niners entire offensive output on 2 predictable, boring plays(125 yards on the two Nicks/Cruz plays).
But Niners fans were afforded those scintillating 2 yard touchdown passes to Vernon Davis, and 1 yard Gore touchdown runs. I think Harbaugh is a fantastic coach and put a tremendous week 1 game plan together...I think the Giants will have piled more points on the scoreboard than both those teams by years end.
But a touchdown is a touchdown no matter how the team gets there. I wish we had some of those non-scintillating one yard runs and two yard passes for a score. Christ, we've been down there enough times and came away with three almost each time.
Scintillating is good, scoring from the red zone, especially the damn one yard line, is better.
Watching PHI and SF this week, the biggest concern right now is about the Giants D matching up. Our LBs and safeties in space with these teams? How in the world are the Giants going to slow them down?
Now while I respect Gilbride, there are some things I dislike about this system. One if the red zone. For example, we were passing the ball perfectly up and down the field. Once we get in the red zone, we decided to run the ball, and turned the ball over. I would have liked to see the ball in Eli's hand. He was in the groove moving the ball. Let him throw it in.
Someone earlier said Eli could be an MVP guy or be close. That can never happy in our system. In the goal line, I know we will try running the ball. I'd rather have Eli throw it and be aggressive like we were against the Eagles last game of the season last year. Granted the Eagles stunk, but I LOVED the aggressive nature in which we played. We piled on points and threw once we got close. If we played like that, Eli would dominate more, and I believe we'd cash in on more red zone chances.
Another aspect I dislike probably more than anything is the amount of choice and option routes. Every fucking year, without fail the ball goes one way and the WR goes another. Eli throws what looks to be a go route, and the WR on the left side is running a post, which results in an Int. You see MM, it's bad enough there was a miscommunication, but in our system those nearly always end in an Int.
So while I respect the overall thing Gilbride has built and he has done a hell of a job, there are certain elements I dislike, specifically redzone play calling, and the WR rules, specifically in the amount of choice/option routes, which result in turnovers or what we used to call sudden change.
I understand in theory what you're saying about the WR/Eli miscommunication, but I don't have the football eyes to actually appraise it. But, obviously, the out-of-sync moments often translate into picks rather than just incomplete passes.
I was thrilled with Eli and the guys Sunday night. There's no reason we can't do that all the time. It's the defense against that kind of system that concerns me. Does Fewell have the defensive imagination to counter their offensive imagination?
Again ... thanks.