Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Some criticism of our offensive system

UberAlias : 10/3/2013 7:51 am
WSJ article. Maybe not completely, but I believe there is some truth to this, unfortunately.
Link - ( New Window )
a lot of truth to it  
fkap : 10/3/2013 8:00 am : link
but it was idiotic to say we don't use a mobile QB. What, we're going to dump our franchise QB in favor of one more mobile?
And folks were complaining when they scored 31 against the Boys  
BillT : 10/3/2013 8:07 am : link
And using Eli's career comp% is creative statistics as he's be at or over 60% since 2008. The OL collapsed. If you want to criticize the Giants or Reese or TC that's what to complain about. The offensive has been top 10 for years.
Now......???  
Upstate_Giants_fan : 10/3/2013 8:08 am : link
Quote:
.... some fans now refer to offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride as "Kevin Killdrive."


How about for several years?
...  
SanFranGiantsFan : 10/3/2013 8:09 am : link
This offense would look a million times better if we had an even adequate offensive line.

Gilbride's done a good job here; the #s bear it out. This has been the most proflic offensive era in Giants history. Have there been problems? Yes. We can never, it seems, convert a short yardage situation & sometimes even a drunk could predict what play we're going to run. And I've always thought that it's way too much reliance on Eli & the WRs seeing the same coverage, which is problematic. But this has been a pretty damn good offense for awhile.

The problem this year is that our OL is historically bad. Like the worst OL I've ever seen. I'm not exaggerating when I say a few BBIers could be put out there & I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Gilbride, and maybe Coughlin, are probably gone after this season if we continue down this path. And yes, I'd like to see Eli in a new system because I'm curious.
spot on  
eleven : 10/3/2013 8:17 am : link
Great article. Tc for all of his greatness is stubborn. That's where he differs from parcells and belichick. They adapt. Parcells could run oj Anderson one year and go high pass with Bledsoe in another. Belichick used to be run run pass and now its 5 wide. When teams play the packers, everyone knows the slants and crossing routes are coming and still can't stop it. if you know our play when we call it, its doa. I think it wouldn't hurt to go uptempo for a half or change schemes for a half to wco. Not saying abandon the offense but just change some things to keep defenses honest.
there was a quote in the article  
fkap : 10/3/2013 8:18 am : link
about everything having to click, or this O looks ugly.

That's a bottom line truth that we've known for years. It's a complicated machine that needs to be finely tuned in order to run right. This O has had moments of sputtering the entire time we've ran it.
This Giants offense...  
adcliff : 10/3/2013 8:20 am : link
has been the best since the late '50's and early '60's, but things change fast in this league. You adapt or die.
Whilst this offensive scheme may not have entirely run its course, it needs to adapt to the current personnel and their limitations. If the coaching staff are that inflexible that they can't (don't know any other way) or won't (too stubborn) change the scheme they shouldn't be coaching in the NFL.
The bottom line is that they have been a productive offense  
Victor in CT : 10/3/2013 8:22 am : link
while KG has been here. There are times I want to chuck the remote at the TV with the playcalling ( 52 throws in the wind against the Skins in 2007 come to mind). The over reliance on passing early in Eli's career when at the time they had a running game that could put up 200 yds on anyone also burns me. And the system is overly complex.

But the article loses it with the mobile QB thing. Just foolish. The read option will be history in 2 yrs, gone the way of the wildcat. The Ds have caught up, the QBs are getting hit hard and will get hurt.

The reason the Giants offense stinks this year is because the OL play might be the worst they've had since the late '70s.
mobile QB  
fkap : 10/3/2013 8:27 am : link
didn't they have Eli roll out quite a bit for the KC game?

There's many ways to incorporate QB mobility beside simply using him as a running back.
The offense has had some talented players  
UberAlias : 10/3/2013 8:28 am : link
It has ability to make big plays and has had success doing so. But there are legitimate issues here. Despite the successes, there have also been many failures.

Perhaps you can primarily point the finger at the defense, but in just about all of the bad losses this team has suffered over the past few years, the offense has not been good either.

Far too many interceptions, and too much reliance on the big play. I agree with the article that there are not a lot of easy throws. Slants and screens are also either hardly existant, or ineffective. On 3rd and 8, most teams burn our defense for 9. On 3rd and 8, we are too often missing on a 25 yard throw doen the sideline. Our short yardage game is predictible and ineffective. Red zone efficiency is poor. Say what you want, but these issues are a big part of our failure to make the playoffs in 3 out of 4 seasons, and looking like 4 out of 5.
the mobile qb line  
eleven : 10/3/2013 8:38 am : link
Was saying we don't run that style of modern offense. Not saying we should it was basically pointing out for obvious reasons why that is off- table
I could not agree more.  
FatHeadTommy : 10/3/2013 8:49 am : link
Everyone on this site lays blame on the OL. I don't buy it. The play calling and offensive scheme are horrendous - predictable to a fault and not even slightly innovative or creative.

The 2 Super Bowl runs were spectacular and they were great, but they did mask lots of flaws that were developing. I've been saying for years that we never, ever fool anyone. What about the Art of War? We never fake a kick, pull a play off the sheet. I look forward to more inside draws on 3rd and long.

We typically run for 2, throw it long and incomplete, then either run an inside hand-off or throw it long again and incomplete or take a sack on an obvious passing situation. Where is the slant? When will they every put two backs in the backfield and run misdirections and counters - Jacobs moving forward with a fake handoff and a pitch to Wilson going the other way might actually work. Teams with inexperienced offensive lines can really benefit from a good screen pass, but because we had our first screen pass picked off on bad execution, we haven't really gone back to it.

Time for some changes. Big changes.
IMO the article is half right.  
SMitch2 : 10/3/2013 9:00 am : link
My sense is that our offensive system, because of all the sight adjustments and reads, when it is clicking, it is nearly unstoppable. It worked many times even last year. However, it seems that this offense is very easy to knock out of sync., and there are many reasons for it to get out of sync.

One problem is that because it is so sight-adjustment dependent, it requires a long learning curve for all offensive players. The draw back being that:
• it's hard for us to plug-and-play new talent into the system.
• Additionally, with the new CBA and shortened practice rules, is there enough time to properly learn this complex a system?

Any missed sight-adjustment by either the QB or receiver results in a horrendous incompletion or easy INT as the ball goes one way and the receiver is completely somewhere else.
• To get this to happen, the D only needs to disguise its coverage enough to fool 1 player.

As with ANY offense, you need a competent Offensive line to execute. Our O requires a running game to open up Play-action and the few easy throws that this system allows. We haven't had that the past two years, thus the Offense in general has been very sporadic.

It is a very demanding system in terms of QB play. Long plays put extra stress on the O-line, make throws harder and windows smaller, require the QB to eat a lot of hits or be able to shuffle around well.

All-in-all, our system seems very prone to Boom or Bust. Thus we get great drives (or games) and a lot of 3-and-outs (or flat-out dud games). Is it too antiquated a system and won't work? I think it's proven it can work. It might be too old school only in the sense that the practice of it and time required to learn it might be so short now that it has become impractical to implement.

Certainly we'll see tons of Bust this year as a result of our sh•tty line-play alone -- any O would struggle with our line, but this system most acutely as we're not based on 3-steps and a lot of timing routes.
Completely agree Smitch2  
islander1 : 10/3/2013 9:03 am : link
with your thoughts.

The OL is killing this team.
expiration date  
area junc : 10/3/2013 9:24 am : link
Its a sound scheme but we dont have the horses.

Its been 10 years: too many good blueprints. We are getting picked apart and we dont/cant counterpunch. You almost want to throw in the towel
good summary smitch2  
area junc : 10/3/2013 9:27 am : link
if we are doing the same things today we did 10 years ago, we are out-moded
I can't get over the fact that  
FranknWeezer : 10/3/2013 9:30 am : link
the WSJ couldn't get any better interviews re the Giants' offense than John Lynch and Chris Simms???
we dont  
area junc : 10/3/2013 9:33 am : link
even change our calls when we face a former player. i mean that is a poster for what is going on now. bull-headed stubbornness
"most prolific offense in Giants history"  
Curtis in VA : 10/3/2013 9:33 am : link
Thats really not a difficult thing to achieve, considering this franchises history with offensive production.
Simms is right  
BlueHurricane : 10/3/2013 9:34 am : link
Quote:
"It's an offense that doesn't really give you a lot of easy completions," said Chris Simms, a former Buccaneers quarterback and the son of Giants all-time passing leader Phil Simms. "It's, 'Let's throw the ball 15 or 20 yards downfield and Eli, can you throw the ball into the tire hole for us?' It's not easy."
......  
JBGiants : 10/3/2013 9:36 am : link
Smitch2, terrific post.
Smitch2...very well said!  
Wonderphil11 : 10/3/2013 9:36 am : link
BBI post of the year....should be required reading IMO
Its a great article and dead on  
Brandon Walsh : 10/3/2013 9:49 am : link
I actually had the same thought regarding Tampa Bay last night.

It’s no coincidence that the Giants most successful drive in KC was in the two minute drill when Eli was in shotgun, 3 WR, with quick passing.

The maddening this is this year with the woes of the offensive line, now would be as good of a time as anyway to use more of a short passing game to get the coverage up more that would eventually open up the deep ball.

The 3 WR shotgun formation has been the Giants most successful formation if you look at advance analytics over the last three years, going back to 2011. Instead they continue to run formation with 2 WR, a fullback and TE, or two TE. The offensive line and edge blocking (tight ends!) isn’t talented enough to win these battles like 2007 and 2008. The run will be more successful out of more of a spread formation, especially on short yardage where they have been terrible. Why bunch everything up when it doesn’t suit these line and this offensive strengths?

I would love to hear Gilbride questioned on this today by the media but I'm sure they won't do it. I would also love to hear the response to why we won't change instead of "execution"
to build on SMitch2s thoughts  
KeoweeFan : 10/3/2013 9:58 am : link
No one devises defenses against you if you are in the cellar. But the 2 SB runs caused DCs to pay attention and EVENTUALLY they will figure you out and train defenses accordingly. An offensive scheme cannot rest on its laurels; stand still and you're dead.

KeoweeFan  
adcliff : 10/3/2013 10:05 am : link
Exactly. Wasn't it John Madden who said if you think you're standing still your actually going backwards, as everyone around you will be moving forwards.
It is not our  
TMS : 10/3/2013 10:20 am : link
offensive plan or system but the personnel in it. ELI is fine, but either/or both the talent and the coaching staff developing it suck. The past five years has been a wasteland as far as developing draft picks and getting FA help for the offensive line and RBs.
...  
adcliff : 10/3/2013 10:38 am : link
If the personnel don't fit the system, change the system.
garbage article  
Rob_MTL : 10/3/2013 11:03 am : link
The option routes aren't exclusive to the giants. The patriots, broncos and the saints also use them also.


I agree Gilbride lacks creativity but so does Eli. The qb decides who he throw the ball to.
Great post smitch!  
Phil from WNY : 10/3/2013 11:15 am : link
The Giants need a capable offensive line to make it work, which they don't have but when it's on, it's unstoppable. I expect to see a ton of resources thrown at the offensive line in the off-season.
Someone please show me  
Pascal4554 : 10/3/2013 11:30 am : link
a fast paced offense with a running quarterback that has won a super bowl. Or better yet multiple super bowls. Going to a hurry up offense will work some of the time, but I have yet to see anyone make a living off of it consistently in the NFL. Lets see how Chip Kelly does this year. Although, I have to admit I'm terrified as to what his offense might do to us this Sunday.
I don't think  
AnishPatel : 10/3/2013 11:35 am : link
we run an archaic system. In theory, the complex sight adjustments we use should work. It's hard to stop an offense when the WRs have rules to constantly beat any coverage. That's always been the premise behind the system.

The problem arises because this system has ZERO margin for error. The success of the system is based on the WR and QB being on the same page. If they are not you get ball goes one way and WR going another way.

That's something that's plagued our system for a while. Another factor is the BOOM and BUST element of our system. When we are on we are high flying and can do great things. When we aren't it looks like the offensive unit hasn't played together ever! This system is based on 5 and 7 step drops, and always looking for the home run ball. I always felt we need 1 and 3 step passing concepts to this system. Dink and dunk more!

I respect Gilbride and what he has done here. I think Gilbride and Chris Palmer saved Eli's career. Having said that, I am ready for a change. I want a new system where I actually know when the ball is released a fucking blue uniformed player is going to be in the tv frame, and not just a ball headed to no man's land with a sole defender lining up to catch it like an outfielder in baseball.
Keowee  
SMitch2 : 10/3/2013 11:39 am : link
If i'm correct about how this passing system is designed, then in theory this O-system will always work. It can't be schemed against because it counters whatever the Defensive coverage is doing on the fly. D runs a zone, the receiver changes route in progress into a zone beater; D runs man, the receiver alters to a man-beater, etc. If that is so, then it doesn't even matter if the D knows the play that is called, because the play changes mid-stream, based on whatever coverage the D called.

In theory, the receivers should always be running the perfect routes that counter the Defense no matter the play called or situation.

My guess is that in practice, that is VERY difficult to do during live-action and that is the root of many of our problems; and why we see so many "miscommunications" even among veterans and Eli.

Both QB and Receiver must see the D doing the same thing and anticipate each-others route adjustment in under 2 seconds. If we have 3 guys going out, it may be that all three plus the QB have to read the D flawlessly and make the correct adjustment or else the WR's routes won't be properly complimentary (i.e. drawing the coverage where it needs to go, and/or you might end up with 2 receivers too close together).

I've always been more D-oriented, so I'd like to hear if someone like Anish thinks I'm on the right track with this.
Lol, Anish  
SMitch2 : 10/3/2013 11:40 am : link
posts while I was writing. :)
Here is a nice video.  
AnishPatel : 10/3/2013 11:50 am : link
I respect June Jones as an offensive coach. Here are some of the things we do. We run a lot of 2 x 2 formations. In our hurry up, we run 1 X 3, Trips right or Trips left. This specific video gives good insight on why two different players like Steve smith and Cruz are so successful in our system, which is a highlight of our system. That you can take 2 different players and if they can get their mental game down, they can be highly productive.


link - ( New Window )
well  
whobetta : 10/3/2013 12:37 pm : link
fuck me in the goat ass...


now the WSJ chimes in years later its like that shit might actually be true, or tolerable by the no wrong can be done by the system crowd.

An offense that eschews the high percentage plays  
Kyle : 10/3/2013 12:38 pm : link
allowed under modern NFL rules changes is an offense that frightens me from an innovation/stagnation standpoint.
The CBA part of smitch's post was one of my concerns when the practice  
GMenLTS : 10/3/2013 12:40 pm : link
restrictions first came out.
Good article - Is Sullivan really running same system?  
nh_giants : 10/3/2013 1:15 pm : link
Very good article. It helped clarify some of the things i had been noticing but could put into words. I think Gilbride's system can work but it just seems like there is very little room for error. The combination of less practice time and and the offensive line mess - some systems to could compensate for it better - Gilbride's system doesn't seem to be able to adapt.

Question - Is Mike Sullivan really running the same system as Gilbride's system??
Good article?  
jbeintherockies : 10/3/2013 9:14 pm : link
I didn't think so.
Back to the Corner