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.