Biggest reason for Giants turnaround on D?

love these read and react over-complicated schemes. This has been going on for years.

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?

Lets take a page from just about any book on management:

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"

.

Battle is great stress and very complex and involves thousand and thousands of men ....and although they trained....even Napoleans veterans fought ...what 25 battles over 15 years?

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

Multitude of reasons why BBIers do not understand the simplification argument:

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

of reasons why people don't understand the simplification "argument". There is one major reason - the argument has been made poorly, and by a poster who has continuously shit on himself with terrible analyses. A guy who tried to explain that the Giants use a complex zone blocking scheme and a guy who claims that we use passing trees that need to be cut down.

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.

Quote:

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!

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.

Making the defense too complex, I think his system forever has been that way. It's almost as if he has to strip away a few things for the players to feel 100% confident. Does that mean that's the reason why everyone is playing better? Idk, but they sure look confident.

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.

credit from our defense because we have lost to less than stellar qbs in the past (Rex Grossman twice in 2011 comes to mind), but playing Freeman and Barkley has definitely helped. The Bears did not punt until the fourth quarter against us. So, I need to see more before I start getting into theories. How is that for "simplification"

I don't think anyone would deny adjustments have been made. I think arc's position above sums it up perfectly.

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.

He makes it impossible to be on that side of the argument because were all lumped in.

I LOVE IT!!! Mr.BBI elitist himself..what a beautfiul sight to behold. Yup keep trying to twist the argument to come up with some way to agree that simplifications were made and have had a big positive effect while still coming up with some convoluted way to discredit what has been said. LOL nice.

When you play two teams that have horrible QB play...

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.

you know what backtracking means in this argument. Because you stay solidly behind the horrendous view that only simplification results in success. Because of it you can't answer the question:

"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.

through 2 quarters. Perry Fewell goes into the locker room, breaks out his biggest scientific calculator and turns the gameplan for the second half into the most intricate, complex plan the world has ever seen, thus precipitating the defensive breakdown in the second half.

In comment 11308491 jcn56 said:

Quote:

through 2 quarters. Perry Fewell goes into the locker room, breaks out his biggest scientific calculator and turns the gameplan for the second half into the most intricate, complex plan the world has ever seen, thus precipitating the defensive breakdown in the second half.

Thread winner!

The lack of turnovers sure helps out. They haven't been on the field constantly, and when they have they've performed well. But they were clearly the better unit from the beginning of the year on. Regardless of whatever changes they've made, not having an interception thrown the last two games has helped keep things competitive.

Coaches are just old scheming, meddling fools, half as smart as they believe themselves to be, trying to outwit the foe and managing to stifle the innate ability and talent of the stars of the show: the players.