Biggest reason for Giants turnaround on D?

jon beason, will hill, turmain mcbride instead of cwebb, and rolle back where he belongs.

Hes the difference! Will Hill too!

improved play of offensive line

hell up

who keeps thinking the answer is simplicity?

has reappeared.

Number two - Hill

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.

coaches had a meeting after being 0-6 and discussed things. Certainly they are not throwing deep as often and turnovers are down. Defensively not sure because it's not as obvious watching on TV but my guess is coverages are different and they do seem to be getting a lot more pressure. Time will tell.

In comment 11304443 mattlawson said:

Quote:

jon beason, will hill, turmain mcbride instead of cwebb, and rolle back where he belongs.

Yes agreed..

So I guess multiple players playing better along with an unbelievable improvement in coverage has nothing to do with what Tuck said of letting the athletes be athletes?

Josh Freeman and Matt Barkley don't hurt either.

Let's see them play a good passing offense before declaring this turned around.

And whatever is second ain't close .

No turnovers and playing with a lead and using clock - magic

played the largest role in what we've accomplished the past two weeks?

have heard player come out and very clearly say things were simplified.

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.

Again seriously? How many years are you going to keep up this shit?

We played 2shitty teams with very bad offenses.

Routine, but why do we assume Tuck isn't telling the truth about this? Is it up impossible that Fewell would have simplified things after a horrid start?

Why does the Giants organization love read and react elements in their system so much?

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.

why did you disappear and reappear only after we stared winning again?

BOTH the O and D are unnecessarily over-complicated and it clearly shows on the football field especially for people who are un-biased.

Yes, the personnel changes had nothing to do with this...like Beason over Herzlich or Hill being back. And the pass rush not being better. Or the quality of the opposing offenses.

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!!!!

Teams helps a lot. The Eagles are averaging 1.5 points a game on offense over the last two weeks.

This d on last years team, they make the playoffs.

There are a few teams worse then the G men and we just played them.

Rolle, he is playing his best ball since he's been here.

yup...the only problem on offense is the offense being too complicated.

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.

shitty teams. However, Be as on has brought more life to the defense. I noticed we are more aggressive overall on D. I like that. Some of our blitzes. are getting home. Let's see how things progress. The D has been playing well.

The offense has made adjustments but we still suck in the red zone.

I'm sure adding Jon Beason had nothing to do with it. Or playing against 2 non competitive QB's. Or the fact that our offense didn't turn the ball over or allow points for the 2nd straight week. Or the fact that we've been excellent against the run all year. Nothing to with any of that.

Perry just flipped the "simple" switch again.

Hilarious.

Plus the offense giving the defense time to rest, and not turning the ball over repeatedly, have a lot to do with it.

playermakers finally making plays. Simple as that.

I guess the quotes from players in these four articles during our dominant D run in the last Super Bowl are unfounded too?


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?

You win. You're right. You were right all along. So smart. Thank you for setting us straight. Thank you!!!!

Can you find a new subject now?

In comment 11304490 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

Again seriously? How many years are you going to keep up this shit?

Every year that the Giants have good stretch of games. Every year

bill sheridan simplified things too........

.

the biggest reason hasn't been the opposing QBs.

On our side the difference is Beason and Hill.

but it is one of the MAJOR contributing factors and it is neglected by many of the resident homers here especially the ones who like to place the blame on the players.

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.

that once we got someone who can call the defense properly, and identify the opposing offense quickly how our defense all-of-a-sudden knew how to play.

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.

Maybe jj is overselling his point but those are tucks words and it is true that players said something similar in 2011.

Do people think tuck is lying?

despite how this organization likes to put a muzzle on players talking about the schemes and/or coaches.

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!

well as Beason has played (I was wrong about that trade), the biggest reason fro the turnaround is that we played the Vikings and the Eagles, two teams with terrible QB problems.

Now we just have to get rid of these complicated zone blocking schemes and our offensive will be ELITEsauce.

read the articles listed above. Were all those player quotes coincidences too?

b/c they don't have to over-think each and every play and can subsequently play much more aggressively instead of passively.

neither RBs nor WRs are freely getting around the corner. Combined with better play in the middle.

In comment 11304549 chris r said:

Quote:

Maybe jj is overselling his point but those are tucks words and it is true that players said something similar in 2011. 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.....

You talk nonstop about this shit but then when someone calls you out for claiming we have complicated zone blocking schemes you go ghost. If you really think this has to do with simplifying our defense you're an idiot.

I guess Beason is also responsible for the 'coincidental'
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.

But for some bizarre reason, he chose to purposely make his own defense struggle throughout ALL of 2012 by never playing his simple card.

Can't make it up.