Hopefully it's not too little too late. However, Fewell as he did the last 6 games of 2011 to salvage our season and help us play to our immense talent level on the way to a Super Bowl win, has simplified things.
From Espn.com:
The Giants haven't allowed a touchdown on defense in the last 10 quarters.
"We've simplified things," defensive end Justin Tuck said. "(Defensive coordinator) Perry Fewell has done a great job putting in game plans that have allowed athletes to be athletes."
Now if only the Giants offense could do the same! This coaching staff LOVES to treat football like it's a chess game. Problem is the guys playing are football players not chess-masters.
So sad it took an 0-6 start to FINALLY simplify the system and let the players and the talent play.
Will they take the shackles off the offense and let our WRs start using their talent on the field too?
You've got 2 pro-bowl level WRs and a third emerging youngster in Randle and a pro-bowl level Qb and you can't score a friggen TD if your life depended on it? Seriously? This is 90% systematic and it all starts with TC and has affinity for complexity and out-smarting the other team rather than letting your talent just go out there and win you a game.
If they are saying they simplified things, that just means they got away from Fewell's crappy schemes. They got pressure from the edges today with DBs, for example. No matter what happens the rest of the way, I want Fewell gone.
Yes agreed..
Let's see them play a good passing offense before declaring this turned around.
Tuck didn't mince words either, his statement is very clear. The Giants D was simplified.
The first time of course took us from 7-7 teetering on playoff elimination, to a Super Bowl victory. This team is loaded but they can only play like it when the shackles of over-complexity are removed.
Over the years we've seen this philosophy stifle so many talented teams . It's sad what it has done to teams that could have been so much more
Heck Remember Rod Rust?
The Giants org has always had a hard on for read and react crap......
You would have thought they would have learned by now finally....
Some LT quotes after the Sheridan year (ESPN.com)
Before the Giants opened Door No. 2 and selected South Florida's Jason Pierre-Paul with the 15th overall pick, Taylor was back to blitzing a Giants defense that surrendered 40-plus points three times in the final four games of '09.
The very unit that had defined LT's two championship teams and had crushed Tom Brady's 19-0 dream had been reduced to a practical joke under Bill Sheridan, the ousted defensive coordinator who appeared to embrace a Charmin-soft approach.
"You can't play read and react and win in this league," Taylor said. "Rod Rust came in with that read and react [in 1992], and I've never in my life seen so many points scored on us.
"The Giants need to get back to attacking on defense. Don't worry about what the offense is going to do and react to that. Attack them and make them worry about what you're going to do."
More info on Rust and Fewell regarding read and react (readandreact.net)
It is unclear why ANYONE would wish to fill those shoes and, from the start, the 1991/92 New York Giants appeared headed for utter disaster. Rowdy Roddy Rust preached the Read-and-React Defense, which turned out to be a complete abyss. It thickly stifled superstars like Lawrence Taylor, Pepper Johnson, Carl Banks, and their beguiled, wandering teammates — forcing a naturally aggressive, Super Bowl-caliber defense to sit back on its heels and wait for the offense to make a move.
In 1992, the team went 6-10. Handley and Rust were fired.
Read and React but dont overreact (Daily News.com)
BY RALPH VACCHIANO
There was a players revolt 18 years ago when Ray Handley and Rod Rust tried to turn a once-aggressive Giants defense into a passive read-and-react team. A similar approach didn’t work so well in the final years of Tim Lewis’ reign either.
Perry Fewell, though, seems ready to give it a try again.
It’s not all of what his varied and seemingly complex defensive approach is about, but there’s no doubt that Fewell wants the Giants’ secondary to employ a “Read and React” approach to coverage during this season which is now just one week away. I wrote a detailed story on the Giants’ new defensive scheme in today’s Daily News.
What I found was that, unlike the ’92, the current players like it. And they think it can be a surprisingly aggressive approach, too.
(Uh what else do you expect the players to say Ralph? Are they going to publicly bash their new DC?) "Perry Fewell's defense is made to bend, but don't break," cornerback Terrell Thomas said. “We’re going to give up underneath throws. That wasn't what the Giants' defense was known for the last couple of years. And I think that's going to be a hard adjustment for the fans and media to see. But I think the overall objective is to create more turnovers."
Now we have BOTH an overly complex read and react offense AND defense. Yikes. WIll this organization ever learn?
THis is not chess this is football. It's an agressive game! take away too much of that agression form your players and bad things happen.
But GmenDynasty has once again - found a snippet to keep alive the same drum he has been beating for how many years?
Keep fighting the fight GmenDynasty!!!!
This d on last years team, they make the playoffs.
Doesn't really have to do with the blocking up front, or Eli throwing to the wrong colored jersey, or receivers dropping passes, backs fumbling.
If we only had smarter coaches.
The offense has made adjustments but we still suck in the red zone.
Perry just flipped the "simple" switch again.
Hilarious.
http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2011/12/back_to_the_basics_giants_defe.html
http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2011/12/against_jets_giants_defense_wi.html
http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2012/01/giants_feel_confident_in_defen.html
http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/giants/fewell-s-defensive-unit-has-caught-fire-1.3469462
Alot of quotes about simplifying things but also playing more coverages that fit the players strengths better.
Will we finally see the coaches make another needed changes offensively and defensively that re-invigorate the players and have them believing that the coaches will put them in better position to execute and ultimately succeed?
Or will we at the end of the year be asking why oh why didn't they figure this out sooner?
Can you find a new subject now?
Every year that the Giants have good stretch of games. Every year
On our side the difference is Beason and Hill.
There are plenty of teams where the players where the main reason for underperformance, this Giants team under TC is the exact opposite. Terrible systems both offensively and defensively that as Tuck alludedto, do not allow the athletes to be athletes.
It's commendable to Reece and Fewell for identifying a "gift" (as in thanks Mr. Gentleman) as is Jon Beason, but inexcusable for not identifying this glaring need for so long.
It seems this situation has now made Rolle to stand up and play like someone else you better look out for if you are an Offensive Coordinator, too.
And let's share a little love for the return of Will Hill.
If we can continue to add sacks per game.....
If we are lucky and get a bit healthier, we could be noise-makers or true spoilers down-the-road.
Might turn into a "fun" season after all.
Do people think tuck is lying?
It is NOT a coincidence that all of a sudden this D hasn't let up a TD in almost 10 quarters. I don't care what teams you play, that is dominant football and once again players are coming out and attributing it to simplifications in schemes.
But yeah go ahead keep assuming it is coincidence!
Do people think tuck is lying?
It's a lot easier saying we simplified things than saying "we only had to focus on the run because we are playing shitty QBs". Whether you see that as lying or just being polite is your choice.
complexity and now we don't just have it on O but on D as well.
Articles over recent years talking about our streak read principle offense and it how it takes a 'PHD' to master it, multiple analysts and former Giant QBs even spoke to it.
As for Perry he FINALLY made simplifications and Garafolo spoke about it. TC mentioned he subsequently saw the players play with more passion and fire in practice than he had all year.That was the Super bowl year. Now we have another dominant stretch and Tuck clearly says we SIMPLIFIED.
But yeah I am making it all up...the desire to just blindly flame on here is truly comical.....
tighter coverage in the back seven,the much fewer blown assignments, the amazing third and long conversions, and less frequent mind blowing completions in between 3-4 defenders playing a soft zone coverage.
Sure him coming here and playing well so quickly is a plus but don't downplay the simplifications that Fewell has made on defense. THAT is the biggest x-factor of them all that has the entire D ballin' instead of over-thinking.
Can't make it up.
keep in mind tom's #1 priority is everything remains in house so 99% of whats actually going on stays far away from the media. when u actually end up hearing about it from the outside its the tip of an iceburg
the players hate this scheme, kiwi, rolle, phillips among others have come right out and said it at times.
whats happening now started in 2011 when there was a mutiny and rolle almost quit. the players begged perry to take the rookies off the field and simplify - meaning not so many checks based on what the offense is doing.
this D has an endless library of checks on pre-snap movement which relies on everyone knowing the playbook and the NFL in general inside and out. To make all the adjustments on each defensive call, align properly and communicate it seamlessly on the fly is almost impossible. fewell agreed to just run the original call during that last 6 game stretch and the vets were able to stay on the same page and look good. (And they had JPP playing out of his mind.)
of course, PF wasn't going to stick w/that strategy as it was akin to using his scheme on training wheels. nobody in the professional ranks is going to stick w/that, nor should they
but of course, we've gone right back to his usual ways and it shows, the players hate his scheme.
Here's a piece I wrote about Rod Rust on my blog.
Thought you might find it interesting.
Rod Rust - ( New Window )
W-L records of teams we faced in past 2 games is 4-10
Even if we remove our games, it's 25-16 vs. 4-8
Sure he has. What a load of fucking shit.
Please enlighten us all on what makes him "right". I'd love to know.
The D has not been the problem this year. They're not going to shut everyone out every game, but they've been solid all year until eventually the O screwed them hard enough that they fell apart. Now that the O isn't playing like the 2nd worst offense in the league, the D looks better. If you turn the ball over 5 times a game and go 3 and out on most other possessions, there aren't many defenses that are going to look good.
Plus, we're probably on pace for a record number of TDs allowed by the offense and special teams combined.
This DL gets pressure, they win
Beason and Hill are huge boosts, Thomas coming back healthy has helped, etc. There are a lot of things. One of them COULD BE a tweak or two in the gameplan, who knows, but its possible.
2. Hill/Beason are difference makers. Huge upgrades.
3. Prince has been a VERY good CB, which helps the entire defense.
4. The QBs we have played are very sucky.
Put that altogether, and things look good defensively.
I've never been a Fewell fan. But this has been his best coaching aside from the run in 11.
-Beason has been terrific
-McBride has been pretty damn solid
-Will Hill is all over the place making plays and is a hell of a tackler as well
-Rolle is playing great
-Prince has been good all year..you almost never hear his name during the game
Tuck showed some life today, hopefully we can get JPP to come around...and of course having played against Barkley and Freeman doesn't hurt..none the less, it's hard to shut out teams in the NFL and at the least we have a pulse now in the division
You rarely fail to disappoint
:)
arc asks this question every thread. If Fewell suddenly realized things that are simple work, why does he revert to complexity?
Joe is a mindless, results-oriented guy. He's still bashing the O for being too complex because of the results, but to my eyes, they've actually played a really controlled gameplan the past two weeks. They are running the ball better and Eli seems to be managing the throws better. Something has changed there. I thought for sure Joe would bang that drum, but instead he's focused on the D who has actually taken more chances and has played more man-to-man the past few games. Maybe because they have the personnel instead of some magic "Easy Switch"!
Even when Joe might have evidence to call something out, he swings and misses by picking the wrong unit.
Good to see you back!
What do I know..
Credit Fewell for some simplification before the season started. Last year, the defensive players were often confused. Fewell said he'd fix that this year. He did. Haven't seen them act like they had no idea what to do.
Calling the changes merely simplification is just foolish. Offenses would adjust accordingly and your defense would be worse.
With Rodgers, Romo, Rivers, Stafford left on the schedule, the defense will have to be even better.
Why not just stick with what works?
As far as simplification goes - I'd love to hear a reporter ask Fewell point blank - yes or no? If yes, he validates my argument about his defensive philosophy being overly complicated requiring too much reading and not enough reacting.
1) the improved run defense has allowed our guys to play much better on third down. Now many throws are contested, more QB pressure, some turnovers as well.
2) Eli/RBs turning over the ball so often was absolutely disheartening for this team. It gave up points, field position, kept our defense on field. It also created so much momentum & confidence for opposing teams.
I think any NFL team can win about 6 games alone each year by just winning the turnover battle.
Prince and Trumaine McBride have played extremely well.
Rolle and Thomas in the Nickel are better than Ross and Hosely.
Will Hill is a beast.
Jon Beason is a beast.
Spencer Paysinger and JaQuain Williams have played well in supporting rolls.
THAT is why our defense is better, not scheme. Better players doing what they do well are in position to make plays.
PERIOD
"We've simplified things," defensive end Justin Tuck said. "(Defensive coordinator) Perry Fewell has done a great job putting in game plans that have allowed athletes to be athletes."
“He went back to the old ways. He solidified: ‘Regardless of they give us A, B, C or D, this is what we’re doing,’ ” safety Deon Grant said on Monday. “Before, trying to protect certain people or whatever the case may be, we had a different call for A, a different call for B and so on.
“Guys mentally were faster with it (against the Jets). That’s the way it was last year and in the beginning of the season this year.”
Now, the question is, will it remain that way?
All of those issues, as well as assignment problems against the Green Bay Packers, led to Fewell simplifying things. Suddenly, it was the offense that looked confused and the Giants’ defensive backs who were sure of themselves.
We’re extremely confident in our group,” Rolle said, “and we’ve proven to ourselves last week what kind of defense we can be if we put our minds together and practice hard throughout the week.”
Fewell generated those good vibes in practice and meetings with his simplified (or as Grant put it, “solidified”) plan. The odds are, given the results and the rebuilt confidence of his secondary, he won’t change much this week.
“I don’t think there’s going to be any of that anymore,” Grant said of the checks that led to confusion.
Okay, but this is a complex league. And if you haven’t noticed, there are some pretty good quarterbacks standing in the way of any Super Bowl aspirations the Giants might have. Keeping it simple against Sanchez is one thing; doing it against Romo, Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees is quite different, right?
“But when you have it the way he had it, we still were tricking the offense,” Grant said, meaning the defense disguised what it was doing individually, not as a disjointed group. “We were able to play with the quarterback and all that stuff, but it was within the defense.”
Perhaps no one benefited more than Grant. At this point in his 12-year career, the 32-year-old former second-round pick uses smarts to get in better position to make a play. If those around him aren’t comfortable, he’s not comfortable and can’t make adjustments. It’s part of the reason he has been limited to only one interception and six passes broken up this season.
However, four of those six pass breakups have come against the Jets and New England Patriots — the two games with the most “solidified” game plans.
“Yeah, and that was all about disguising and getting back to my leverage,” said Grant, who nearly had an interception early in the third quarter of Saturday’s game. “It was just about playing the ball.”
Too bad we wasted that 7th round pick on Jon Beason... I guess we never needed him, all we needed to to is flip the simple switch.
“That’s one of the reasons practice has been so good this week,” the Giants’ safety said the other day as the locker room emptied following the final full practice of the week. “It’s just guys getting back to what they know, being comfortable.
“We’ve got our playmakers on the field. We’re putting guys in position to make plays. It’s going to show. You’ll see what happens.”
Phillips wasn’t alone in his optimism. A few players were enthused by defensive coordinator Perry Fewell’s willingness to get back to basics this week. The plan is apparently to rid themselves of many on-field checks in favor of getting back to basic schemes that worked last season.
Gone will be the confusion, the “I was right” excuses between players executing different calls, the not-so-veiled grumbling from Antrel Rolle wanting to be a “ball hawk” and the passive approach from defensive backs trying to figure out what to do.
Also eliminated will be the ridiculous rate of third-down conversions by opponents, the quick releases from quarterbacks giving the pass rush little time and the receivers running free for uncontested touchdown grabs.
Well, at least they can only hope all of these things will be cleaned up for a defense that has yet to turn in a dominating performance this year.
“From the front to the back. It’s been everything, it hasn’t been right,” safety Deon Grant said. “But this week (Fewell) got back to, ‘Forget it. I’m going out there with the guys I’ve got, I’m going back to last year’s mentality.’
Fewell wants to see it this week. He has to. In a lot of ways, he’s simplified the game plan by getting back to what worked last year.
2) Never allow Mark Herzlich to play anymore
3) Tell our Def Ends to try hard to get to the QB on 3rd down
4) Have our play-making Safety Antrel Rolle make a few plays
and last but not least...
5) Don't think so much, it can only hurt the team
RE: Changes that have been made to the defense in recent weeks
A: On defense, we were adjusting too much and just not playing fast and I think the second half of the Chicago game, we saw how good we can be if we simplify things. I think we were trying to do too much at times, as a coaching staff and as players. Once we got to a stage where we could simplify things and play a lot faster and play with our eyes and speed and talent, you could see the results on the field.
They dont have Tuck's comments about the changes/simplifying things in the transcript, but he was asked about it, you can see it in the clip on Giants.com
Said (paraphrasing)
"We wanted to go out there and see if they were better than us. We were beating ourselves, things were too complicated, too many checks, playing on our heels... we wanted to attack more". He also confirmed that the changes (simplifying things) took place at half time during the Bears game.
TT's transcript & Tuck's video - ( New Window )
And even the BBIers with blind bias can't ignore all the quotes out there about simplification.
There were many quotes over the years about the over complexity of the offense too. From analysts former Qbs, players and coaches.
It is clear as day that Coughlin (and probably much of the front office and ownership) absolutely love read and react schemes.
From the days of Rod Rust to Perry Fewell along with going all out for Eli (when do you see this organization EVER making such an aggressive trade up in a draft for multiple picks ). They wanted Eli badly to be the guy to run this amazingly complex read and react based offense. Problem is so many receivers from Shockey to Plax (early on) to Manningham to Randle to Murphy are having a ton of trouble grasping it fully (heck even Eli took years to grasp it well and STILL struggles with it time to time).
This organization thinks you play these games on a computer. There is a law of diminishing returns with complexity in football. If they scale it down some (not totally dumb it down necessarily) it will remove the shackles so to speak and let 'athletes be athletes' like Tuck put it.
Once again desperation has forced the organizations hand to simplify yet again. We have seen it lead to a Super Bowl win in the knick of time before. The talent has been here in spades for much of TC's tenure. However will it be too little too late this time?
Periodic re-communication of the plan helps people realize what is important and focus...and the organization "plays" faster
USS Grant won partially because his orders were considered the best and clearest orders down past the regimental level
Lord Nelson won with complex and aggressive schemes because he met each night with each ship captain in general terms and on a personal level for weeks so they all had a common perspective ....then the night before a battle he got them all together and wrote their orders in front of all the other captains...and many wrote afterwards "that his plans actually seemed simple during the battle" even though naval historians considered them too bold to be tried...and opponents didn't even try the same tactics
D Day was incredibly complex and multi layered but Eisenhowers organization and attention to detail allowed more things to go right than wrong
Hank Stram, Steve Owen, Don Shula, Bill Walsh all had "complex schemes" for their time...but got the 53 players doing more right than wrong
Bill Belichek and Peyton Manning get their teams to do complex things
TC does as well ...well enough that you have lots of people reading these threads....not because they are well grounded or researched or supported....but because their are more people reading the site of a dynamic organization who has had success more than most organizations in the last six years
Surgeons perform complex surgery after years of coaching and practice of complex procedures ..."until they feel simple"
Getting on the same page for the playoff run or any winning streak is a matter of humans "getting on the same page so it seems simple"
Sales people come into meeting after meeting until the sales compensation plan "seems simple"
I submit that:
"seems" is an operative word
players say clichés all the time...especially the ones management and PR departments steer reporters to
Derek Jeter gets interviewed every game spring training onwards before and after a game...about 400 media exposures a year
Reporter: "wow the team is really playing well lately. how come?"
Jeter: well we all seem on the same page and really focused on the key things. The game is simple when everybody get it"
Reporter: Derek, you have been on a 11 game hitting streak. Did you make any adjustments?"
Jeter: well Joe noticed that I was turning my wrist slightly, which threw off my legs knees hips, lower back and forced me to be misaligned. Once I saw the video tape and had a few hundred swings it all seems simple now"
Next: you do know that you are projecting a lot into a few "throw the reporters some pablum" moments by guys who really want to tell you absolutely nothing?
Lot of certainty given its standing on so much conjecture?
Possible that one dimensional opponents affect the schemes?
Possible they build greater complexity as the year goes on?
Possible that 12-15 new play variations are inserted per game and all the rest are the same all year long?
its a complex game to analyze....and we will never know
we do not have xray vision to peer through the helmets and skulls of players in concrete meeting rooms or while playing
you also have to consider that "motivation" is not passion...motivation in a complex game or situation is based on clarity. witness the military or sports analogies above
I just never get how such a level of certainty can be ascribed to your theme. I mean have at it and all...but we could argue just as easily that the players reach stretches where it feels simple because they "get it"
So lets go back and look at Gaugamela....Alexanders masterpiece
Never been done before
very complex in total
many many men...no cell phones...no video tape...no previous experience
No sight lines to see the whole battle. No instant replay
Complex task for all the marbles
Core team was formed playing together in Macedonia for years.
Layers of officers came to trust Alexander...it was not a battle he could have pulled off if it was one of his first ten
Complex plan...drawn up three nights before...each layer of the general ranks broke it down for the next layer of command down to the foot soldier level each night for three nights in a row
The goal was to make each guys task "seem simple"
The plan was not
Darius got out coached and his guys had a simple plan and many more men
The French had a simple plan at Agincourt. Henry has a complex one that was very new. We all have heard what happened on St Crispans day
Varro had a very simple plan at Cannae. Hannibal's plan was so complex it had not been tried before. So complex Guerdarian next tried it 2000 years later. Two legions worth of simplified are no more
Coaches have been getting men to execute complex plans and breaking them down so each individual "feels" its simple for 2500 years
1. Some are just blind coaching apologists(also for a variety of reasons in itself). Fans who invariably take the coaches side .If players are playing bad it is their fault. When you see a player playing 'slow' or blowing an assignment its due to his shortcomings not the scheme. It is what is tangibly seen, therefore it is the only thing they can see to blame. Add in some who see 2 Super Bowl wins under Coughlins watch and have deified him.
2. Some do not understand that complexity in scheme has a law of diminshing returns. They think because its the NFL all defenses are 'complex' and fail to see that while in vague generality that rings true, it is not a black and white statement. There are levels of complexity and the Giants O and D are so far beyond the complexity of other O and Ds in the league which has subsequently caused the players to play passively and reactively vs agressively and confidently. These are football players not chess players. The coaching staff seems convinced that with 'better coaching' a player can handle almost any number of mental assignments and still play fluidly (it simply not true for most on this team and it has been proven over and over both on O and D).
3. Many have bought coach speak and PR spin and do not realize how tight lipped an organization this is. It certainly seems that Coaches here hate players talking about simplifying a defense because it indicates failure on their part on many levels. Failure to teach it well enough as well as perhaps failure to come up with a sound system. Players here as well as coaches are very well trained in what they should say to media and are told to keep all 'controversial' topics 'in-house'. Problem is my guess (just like when things were teetering on disaster or last Super Bowl year at 7-7) things got so bad at 0-6 and players are so tired of the heavy hand of Coughlin and this organization the truth starts to come out and players start opening up to the media.
4. There is a faction here of ' holier than thou' BBiers whose first instinct is to flame and put down other posters and-or never admit when they are wrong. They will blindly adhere to an opposite view point than yours no matter who wrong it is. They will also run to try to come up or even twist things said by certain posters to discredit any point you have ever said. Then they hold on to that one thing and act like 'well you were wrong about that' so everything you have ever said must be wrong too!
Funny thing is you will also still see a bunch of these 'elitists' hold on to dear life to their sinking ship view point until it is embarrassingly obvious they were wrong. Youll also see some get desperate and try to change the subject and-or try to jump onto other topics to attack your credibility that have little or nothing to do with the main topic at hand
If dorgan or a person with a great deal of football knowledge and some insight into the game had offered the simplification argument, it might be accepted because he'd use concrete examples of where and when these simple changes were made.
More importantly, he'd have an answer as to why if simplification is the Godsend, then why do the Giants only employ it during winning streaks and then go back to really complex schemes while losing.
That's sort of the lynchpin that takes down Joe's shitty argument. Not only does he simply ignore that question, he ramrods the board with quotes from 2007 - quotes probably ingrained in his hard drive for immediate recall to paste into every fucking thread on the subject.
Kind of like you with the complex zone blocking scheme? How you run away from it every time someone brings it up because you can't man up and admit you completely pulled it out of your ass and made it up?
That's rich.
And there's nothing to "admit" being wrong about. My argument isn't that they didn't make adjustments. My argument is that typically, you're turning this "simple" thing into a whole big thing that it's not. In your world, Perry Fewell just randomly makes the defense too complex and then simplifies it.. and then makes it complex again for no apparent reason.. no rhyme or reason, just does it.. and yet, you can't seem to figure out how ridiculous that logic is and how it makes no sense whatsoever.
If you don't want to believe that the other 10 factors (Beason, Hill, not turning the ball over, going against awful QB's etc) had more to do with the defense's last 2 outings, then unfortunately, you're the blind one.
Keep in mind, in 2011, playing against one of the NFL's worst QBs (Sanchez) really started you on defensive roll. Sometimes that's all it takes, confidence and evidence that you can dominate no matter who the opponent is.
What makes Joe's argument so mind-numbingly obtuse is that he doesn't allow for people to argue that. He claims that all success is by simplification alone. If you don't bow down and say, the Giants are only doing well because Fewell (or Gilbride) burned half the playbook, then he claims you are against him. There is no grey area with him - it is either the success is from simplification or it is nothing.
Yet, he fails to even acknowledge this. What makes this such a ridiculous argument is that Joe could have some decent points made and used Tuck's quotes and other quotes to show adjustments have been made, but he doesn't do that. He uses quotes so that the SOLE reason for success is simplifying things. There is no middle ground for him. It is almost like he has a mental illness that prevents him from understanding basic logic and forces him to repetitively post the same shit over and over again.
Last time I looked fibromyalgia didn't affect the brain.
Also, very easy to simplify the defense when you have improved play from your MLB, safeties and CBs.
There is no "biggest" reason, there are many reasons. In the past 2 weeks, the Giants have played teams with terrible QB play, they have a much better MLB, Will Hill and Antrel Rolle are playing exceptionally well, and their CB play has been very solid. When players play better, you don't need to make things overly complex. The past two weeks are a good indicator of how this D can play, but not all of the problems are solved yet.
"If simplification is the reason for success, why would the staff go back to being complex time and again, and only change during losing streaks?"
You should be able to answer that easily if you have a grasp on simplification. I'll even forego the layup that is asking about the complex zone blocking schemes.
I've said all along (as has arc) that teams adjust constantly. You can't just take the adjustments and say AHA! it is all simplification. I don't know why, but you simply can't see that's what you do. THAT is the reason this continuing shitshow exists.
For somebody who throws out terms like "mighty" and "elite", isn't the whole point of your drivel to get kudos on argumentation that has been shown to be egregiously narrow? Seems to me you've carried on like a moron for years about simplification just to get props. That's about as dumb as your contention that ONLY simplification is what leads to success, despite the numerous examples showing why other factors have as much, and oftentimes, more importance.
Thread winner!