During the Bears game, and they did
http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2013/10/justin_tuck_says_giants_were_a_check_with_me_defense_in_first_half.html
It's pretty clear from what players have been saying lately they thought the schemes were too complex, and weren't working. It's also pretty clear that the offense has undergone a similar treatment the last 2 weeks.
Arguing about it at this time is pointless. The players have flat out said it. When TC was confronted with it he didn't deny it, and said it was good that players and coaches can talk.
What I'm really curious about is why is it anathema on these forums to say what the players have said to their coaches? Why do people get upset with the concept that offensive or defensive schemes can be too complex to the point the thinking involved outweighs the action? Why is that such a hard concept to understand?Why does it upset so many people here when someone makes the observation the defense is too complex,this read and react, or that Gilbrides offense takes quite awhile to learn, and even then there is a lot of decision making involved during a play. Why don't people understand that making decisions takes time, and takes time away from actions?
The coaches finally got it when the players made it clear in no uncertain terms.Would be great if the fans understood that as well.I don't know where the belief that a thing can't ever become to complicated to be effective came from.
I guess a lot of BBI posters are armchair generals, and maybe that's the problem. They like to play coach, or imagine they are the GM and who stays and who goes.Perhaps if we imagined ourselves as players, who were charged with actually executing the plays we might understand the hinderance of having to go through a too prolonged process of diagnosis before we get our bodies into gear.
A coaching scheme that asks the players to do the coaches job for them and make the adjustments isn't coaching at all, it's sloughing their job off onto the players.It's unimaginative and lazy.It asks the players to do all the headwork.
Let the athletes play, and let the coaches do the planning and dissecting of plays and positions, and maybe we can finally get away from this....
Paralysis by Analysis.
We were 0-6. Hope You understand.
-BBI
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 generailty 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. Coaches 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 failure to come up with a sound system. Players here as well as coaches are very careful and deliberate in what they 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 descredit any point you have evee 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!
What changed about the pass rush? Vick and Barkley holding onto the ball way too long. I'm not dismissing it cause its very obvious they've played better, but theres still many plays everyone gets stood up and the line engaged. I want to see it against a good QB and line. And believe me, I hope we kick their ass.
The last poster reminded me....You also have ' piggy-backers '. Guys that have trouble thinking for themselves , love to judge and will quickly jump on the pile.
Now you see quotes that they clearly simplified in the seond half of the Bears game and we haven't let up a single TD in 10 quarters! Knock down the competition all you want but this is the NFL. No TDs in 10 quarters is a heck of a start. I still don't trust Fewell but at least I'm encouraged we are finally taking a step coaching wise in the right direction.
Can you finally admit you may be wrong about simplifications taking place on Defense and it helping the team play better ? Or are you going ro pretend you never took that side to begin with?
When I hear things like that, the first thought that comes to mind is that maybe things are complicated and they might benefit from making the defense a little easier to run. So I'm glad to hear thats what happened, though I wonder what in the heck took so long to make the adjustments since this has happened every year.
This organization LOVES read and react principles in their schemes. Because in theory if it is executed perfectly it can be almost impossible to stop both offensively and defensively. Problem is these are football players playing the game not robots. Too much complexity and or in play adjustments and guys are playing passively and not aggressively anymore. Your greatest athletes look slow and tenative. It's like a ball and shackles for your entire team.
Unfortunately, It's been going on for years from Rod Rust to Perry Fewell and it goes all the way up to ownership and their philosophies.
There are plenty of articles,quotes and etc. talking about this in the thread linked below:
Turnaround on D - ( New Window )
Now once again, you refuse to address that we've played A.) Have guys like Will Hill, Beason, and a healthier JPP, B.) Played awful offenses that don't have a QB on their team the past 2 weeks. and C.) Our defense being solid this whole season, but the offense turning the ball over and getting overmatched in time of possession made our defense look and perform worse.
No, you won't address those points because you're so fixated on a stupid fucking simplification theory that you have no proof of other than Tuck just saying "we simplified things".
All the multicle articles, quotes,examples etc are listed in this post as well as in the linked thread. If you still can't see it , you ain't ever gonna see it.
One thing a coach, or any commander must do is assess his available means. A shitload of injuries, substitutions, new guys, etc and and one year deal dudes makes the offense harder to implement as it's drawn up.one or two guys aren't up to snuff and it all breaks down it seems,. yes , if they players were smarter they would have less communication. sometimes one has to accept he doesnt have the ingrediants to Make what he wants, then you have to make somethign else instead.
My one consistent criticism of this coaching staff is failure to adapt to a changed situation.They know how to coach, to motivate, to plan.but the plug and play mentality is poison.
You can make the argument " well, these guys are professionals, what are you gonna do?" but the fact is, if it isn't working then adjustments must be made.
This isn't the second time in Coughlin's tenure it's been said things have been simplified. It's the fourth.
As for those who simply discount what the players say, I just don't know how to respond to that.Eric said play nice awhile back, but I'm just baffled by some of the comments.People just makes shit up and it's OK I guess.I dunno.
"Those of you who thought that Giants players themselves credited Fewell with a scheme which used smoke and mirrors until the injured came back and the playing out of position players all understood their new roles...well you were wrong
Using the new science of JJmatics (a combination of cognitive science, reverse engineering brainwave signal processing and a new branch of exotic advanced calculus) Jersey Joe could look into the helmets of the players (even though they were on TV)and tell which ones on defense were a microsecond slower due to processing extra options versus the players on the opposing team who could see through the complexity a microsecond faster on play 47 of Game 3.
In other words, the Giants were less good at processing complexity and the other teams better at seeing through it.
Once the Giants coaches realized that the other guys were faster because our complexity was not as good as their complexity processing; we reverted to physical talent just in time
Thats the simple version for you simpletons.
In truth, some players could handle the complexity and others could not
So using quadrophonic exponential JJmatics, it was computed that the guys who were slowed by complexity were more important than the guys who were better off through complexity on enough plays that opponents who could see though our complexity were less than those slowed by our complexity
In sum, JJmatics proves that we are dumber than our opponents for complexity hurts us more than hurts the opponents...unless we dumb it down.
Here is where the genius comes in:
Obviously, if we are even dumber and dumberer as next season rolls on than we will surprise them and win back to back SuperBowls.
We should be so dumb by the playoffs that we will confuse the opponents by running only one play the whole first half and lining up backwards in a circle.
But we will not be confused and much faster because we will know very very very well the one play we will run. Even the dumbest of our dumb will be fast and sure as they run the Reverse Wonderlic
Back to Back. It is written."
Designate one player (in the Eagles game TT) to keep an eye on the QB during the read.
That's not scheme simplification. But it is simplification. Tremendous gulf between the two.
Feigned exasperation is no substitute for sound reasoning IMHO.
The premise that " it's just something players say when they are winning" to me isn't plausible, because if it wasn't true there is no reason to say it.Why not say any other of a million different random shits.
But like I said, it is interesting to see the evisceral reactions it draws from both sides.
My opinions are based on my own observations. Players comments in this regard aren't telling me something I didn't already think.
I'm trying to stay open minded here.A lot of posters seem to think it's self apparent that scheme complexity is simply never a factor in execution, whether it effects reaction times either mentallyor physically. To me it's intuitive that it does and counter-intuitive that it doesn't. In every other field, the more complex a thing is, the more difficult, the more time and effort, and the longer to develop. Why is the NFL an exception to what seem to me to be basic truism? I'm serious, I'm not trying to be stubborn or flippant, and I'm not trolling.
But even after players come out and say it, a whole ton of people simply disregard it.What am I missing here?
So it was the coaching then....
That said... Fewell pisses me off..“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,” Thomas said. “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.”
THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT OCCURRED IN 2011!!!
THAT'S INCOMPETENCE IMO...SMH
If I'm a guy with less than a year in almost any job in the world, and I go tell my e,ployer my job is too complex, too hard, it's beyond my capabilities, well, most of us would be unemployed shortly thereafter.It's just not something you say.
Gman dynasty or jersiejoe or whoever he is does have a point, quack or not.Your basically saying the coaches arent doingntheir job, either that, or you are admitting you can't do yours.
What was Tuck really doing? Why did he say that publicly?
Soon as he said it, even though I agreed I kinda thought he was throwing Fewell under the bus.Why would he do that? Does he assume he is gone next year and is giving the rest of the defense a goodbye present?If iI was him I wouldn't have said it in public, even if it was true unless I wanted the guy gone, or unless I felt there needed to be public pressure for change, because I had already exhausted every other option.
Fewell claimed the terminology among other things were confusing the shit out of the players. He vowed to fix this and he did. Not since the Bears game but the whole season so far. Simplification in terminology has helped a lot.
I never thought I'd say this but Fewell has done an OK job this year. Not based upon the last 2 games but based upon what he can do if you give him a real linebacker and few guys that can pressure the QB just a bit.
Guys w/o a superior intellect struggle to make the in-game adjustments his "passing trees" requires.
Don't think so? Think about this: Have you ever watched another NFL team team that had a great QB throw the ball to a spot and not have their receiver where they should have been as often as happens with the Giants?
He was either trying to apply pressure or throw Fewell under the bus.You'se saying he was throwing him under the bus?
Admittedly speculation on my part. Isn't that what we do here?
Or motives are taboo? Like I said, this topic moreso than almost any other just seems to draw an evisceral reaction from people one way or the other.
Maybe because it asks, and ultimately answers the question " Whose fault is it, really."
I don't buy the premise that Tuck made up this incident during the Bears game that they went and talked to Fewell and asked him to simplify things.If he said it happened I take his word for it.He jst makes some shit up about his coach and says it in a press conference for no reason? I doubt it.
Check it out - ( New Window )
:>)
It's the most predictable thing in the world and it's going to happen.
And this... the best part of this was that Joe had absolutely no idea that Perry even existed 2 weeks before we hired him. Literally had no idea about anything he had ever done in this league, didn't know who's staff he was on, where he was coaching, etc. until his name came up as a candidate and then Joe latched on and decided we HAD TO hire him. He's done about three different 180's on him since then. Flip flop flip flop flip flop.
A lot of category #4 blind flamers here. Carry on.
That whole "read and react" style cannot be used successfully by defenses. It's fine for offense where Eli makes a read and adjust just prior to the snap. On defense, you make your players eunuchs.
Never having played football at a high level, I still opine that defenses function best when they get to attack. They live for it. If Fewell agrees to drop most of the read/adjust shit but players retain their assignments it becomes man to man football.
Fewell can really help his guys by listening to the veterans more often. I'm sure they hate playing 10 yards off the line on a coverage down knowing the offense needs 4 yards to move the chains. Forget the chess match on the line prior to the snap and make his front 4 guys do just 2 things: Maintain your gap assignments and beat your man to the ball carrier or QB.
It's an adjustment in philosophy more so than just becoming simpletons.
What sucks is that joe is leading the crusade here and making his side of the argument a moot point. Just stop.
I don't get it????????????????????????????????????????????
Back to the basics - ( New Window )
But, we should keep in mind that it really *is* possible that Fewell isn't exactly Bill Belichick when it comes to devising plans for one defensive series, one game, or an entire season.
There are three levels of defense. (I;m not a football guru so have patience) By that I mean there's the line, the line backers and the safeties and corners.
First they all have to understand the terminology and the instructions(?)
Second they have to communicate within each level.
Third they have to communicate between levels.
That's a lot of communicating both horizontally and vertically in a very short time.
We all know how hard thatcan be under normal circumstances.
It's my feelings that there was too circuitous a route that the information had to follow. Or just a bad way of communicating. I feel the players knew this but the coaches could not put the information to use UNTIL the players got together on all three layers and hashed it out.
These guys have been playing football for at least 8 years for rookies and up to 18 years for the veterans. I believe there's a lot of football savvy in that group but until they, all the defensive players at the various levels got together and discussed their difficulties and suggested remedies based on their experiences and formed a plan of action.....Then they took it to Fewell and got him to see the problem.
It was at this point the simplification took place. The lines of communication were adjusted to be much quicker, more specific and more encompassing.
That's how I see it.. No changing of any defenses.
REmember one of the things said about Beason was that he needed order and understanding. Obviously this is what he suggested and the players recognized the need.
The problem with many of the posts is that all the information is out there but the poster has to go around and find it all and put it together so that in responding th proper perspective can be taken.
Emotions must be put aside, All information on the topic must be gathered, thoughts must be orderly .....and the poster has to learn to spell and type!! the latter is directed towards this poster!!!
That's my thought on the simplification of the defense ...and my thought on getting ready to post.....and the physical part of posting.
LSMFT!!!
Don't bother, dudes, you're wasting your time.
In other words, why the back-and-forth? If simplification helped us to the Super Bowl, why did we go away from that?
4th in Yards Allowed Per Rushing Attempt at 3.6
Two good indicators as to defensive performance.
If the DEs and DTs start getting more pressure and hits on the QB, this defense will definitely hold its own against teams in the second half.
GmenDynasty : 8:33 am : link : reply
So even though he has had a point all these years I am going to say its wrong anyways!
A lot of category #4 blind flamers here. Carry on.
You have a point but it isn't what your conclusion is. Your conclusion is that the only reason we have success is through simplification. Not only is that a terrible position to take, it is incorrect.
If you simply made the point that adjustments have been made, there'd be no argument. But for the life of me, I don't understand what the goal is here. It is almost like you want some sort of kudos from the board that simplification is the only thing that drives wins. So you argue a position that can't possibly be proven. You have no fucking appreciation of grey areas and only want this one simplification angle to be made.
It is almost like in your attempt to say you are so right that you ignore the fact that your premise makes you very wrong. And you are too fucking ignorant to realize that each and every thread where you hammer home the point of simplification only digs you deeper in other's minds as an annoying twat.
A lack of self awareness to go along with shitty argumentation is a terrible recipe.
Yet I'm sure all hat will happen is a snide little "There's another #4 poster". Once again, a #4 you've created as a smokescreen to a shitty analysis.
Just curious
Just curious
And there it is. BOOM!
In other words, why the back-and-forth? If simplification helped us to the Super Bowl, why did we go away from that?
I too, have no idea what is going on.
as to those asking "why" did he go back to his old ways in 2012 and the start of this year?
think of perry's D similar to Gilbride's O. Several built in checks based on what the offense does to the point where the original play call means very little. perry has scrapped all the checks or as T2 put it "too many adjustments".
now they run the play called in the huddle, insuring that all 11 guys play the same D on every snap.
in NFL terms that is as basic as it gets.
if it works, fine - but what does it say about fewell (and his scheme)? You don't get to be a Defensive Coordinator in the NFL without having a scheme u cultivated for many years. You believe in that scheme. what the Giants are doing now is Perry's scheme on training wheels.
Translation: "Let's limit the scheme as much as possible while emphasizing the players as much as possible."
Hence all the "just line up and play" remarks.
pretty easy to understand why fewell (and mr. comprehensize tom coughlin) would want to use his full scheme rather than a paired down, ultra-basic version of it. the same thing is going on on the offensive side of the ball and it's working.
All aboard the Dupe Limited!
Can't wait to see this defense against an actual offense....if Green Bay lights them up, will they have another meeting?
Than in response,Fewell throws them under the bus.Guys just gotta will themselves and beat double teams.Maybe do a little dance to get themselves motivated,I'll join in too
Now Tuck has broke out the Perry is #1 foam hand,and is complimenting him left and right.
So something has changed,I have not gone back and noticed if it's as drastic as 2011.But my guess is they won't be standing around watching the quarterback as much.
If only things were that "simple." But they aren't.
No one is denying that adjustments were made. Teams make adjustments. It's commonplace in this league. It's necessary.
The issue is the complete failure by Simple Joe, his other handles and those having a tough time with logic to grasp the concept that there are some other pretty major factors at play here.
At the same exact point where people thought the defense started playing better, we conveniently traded for the best MIKE we've had since Antonio Pierce. We got a playmaking safety back from suspension in Will Hill. The offense has now gone two games in a row without turning the football over and to top it off, we've gone against 2 completely non competitive QB's.
So when someone sits here and tries to act like all we ever needed to do was "simplify" the defense for these results to come about, it sounds freaking ridiculous because it doesn't take into account any of the other things at play.
Are we still pitching shutouts with Mark Herzlich in the middle of the defense? Are we doing it against Vick at 100% or even Foles instead of Barkley? Are we doing it if the offense turns the ball 4x against Philly or Minnesota?
I've been supportive of this defense all year long because I think they've played better and weren't getting credit until now.. but to deny that any of the aforementioned things have played MAJOR roles in the defensive performance and claim that all we needed to do was "simplify" is just plain ignorant.
Of course, the new players have helped immensely.
But carry on...
But carry on...
Actually, yes.. Joe pretty much IS denying that. He's saying the "simplification" basically made all of the difference.
So again.. what happens if the Packers dump 30 points on us in a few weeks? Will we go back to saying the defense is too complex?
I was arguing that 1) players had issues with aspects of the schemes PF like to run and 2) a simplification of certain aspects did occur and helped
GmenDynasty : 6:17 am : link : reply
Or being in love with something so much that you ignore all the other signs until you are basically pounded into the ground with it's failure?
This organization LOVES read and react principles in their schemes. Because in theory if it is executed perfectly it can be almost impossible to stop both offensively and defensively. Problem is these are football players playing the game not robots. Too much complexity and/or pre/post adjustments and guys are playing passively and not aggressively anymore. Your greatest athletes look slow and tenative. It's like a ball and shackles for your entire team.
Unfortunately, It's been going on for years from Rod Rust to Perry Fewell and it goes all the way up to ownership and their philosophies.
There are plenty of articles,quotes and etc. talking about this in the thread linked below 9both when we simplified in 2011 and when we did it again during the Bears game this year):
Turnaround on D due to simplification - ( New Window )
As for the simplification like in 2011, I said it was a major contributing factor. However, as with any big change there are almost alaways multiple factors. And I have mentioned a few times that Beason did help.
Anything on that yet?
GmenDynasty : 4:21 am : link : reply
1. Some are blind coaching apologists(also for a variety of reasons in itself) People who invariably take a 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 generailty 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. Coaches 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 failure to come up with a sound system. Players here as well as coaches are very careful and deliberate in what they 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 descredit any point you have evee 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!
I don't understand what's so hard about accepting the fact that there have been adjustments in our defensive scheme - adjustments that can be classified as "simplified". Other factors for our improved D also most definitely include personnel (Beason, others getting healthier, etc..) and also that we played against Freeman and Barkley.
This debate has seriously been one of the most pointless arguments ever on BBI.
Just curious
Many months and threads later, still no word from Joe about those zone blocking schemes.
The eagles with Vick haven't had a passing attack?? That's news to me
So is Peyton Manning.. so the defense should get a complete pass for Week 2.
Romo isn't bad, either.. the Dallas O only scored 22 on us despite us turning the ball over a billion times.
It's convenient to say the defense is too complex when we lose. That's my point.
I read between the lines when Tuck made those comments too. Excellent thread by the way.
Most people disagreeing with Joe aren't saying that there haven't been adjustments, some of which include simplification. What Joe keeps asserting is that the simplification alone is responsible for our success.
We aren't arguing with him about adjustments, we are arguing at his stubborness to look at anything else as a factor.
Yet ironically, he looks at those who disagree with him as stubborn and refusing to admit they are wrong. It is the comedy that just keeps giving to BBI.
Arc... We didn't know that going into the game?? So it's unfair to say that we "sold out the run because we played shitty QB's"... That's crap. Vick and Foles owned us last game .
The key? Eliminating so many calls.
That's Tuck's opinion.
He added: "I thought we were more of a 'check with me defense' in the first half, and that didn't really allow us to play fast. So, I give (Perry) a lot of credit saying 'we need to simplify this.' We agreed. And he's put together three pretty good game plans back to back where we've played pretty awesome and hopefully we can continue to do so."
What exactly are you upset about? It seems pretty black and white to Tuck. It's an interesting article in that something similar what written 2 years ago.
I have no idea if this is going to help in the Packers' game. We have better players so maybe it will.
Simplifying the calls - ( New Window )
but you're not. you decided to continue the shit show.
i am a total newbie. i've been reading the board for a couple years and posting for a couple months. i don't have any dogs in this fight. as an outside observer, the problem isn't BBI. it's posters like you who would rather argue a single, solitary point, without giving an inch, than reach some sort of resolution - like men do. it makes you seem like a child and frankly, i don't have any clue why you get as much attention as you do. where i'm from, children who throw tantrums are largely ignored.
Fewell allowed the players to play. He conceded the read & react is not working. The players (especially the front 4) are now playing to attack. Fewell allowed them to forgo the fancy pre-snap adjustments and concentrate on pressuring the QB.
Defenses seem to almost always work better when they attack and not play prevent. That is called a change in philosophy.
When Tuck used the word "simplify", he did so for the simpletons who don't grasp overall defensive schemes and probably never will. Tuck would have been long winded giving a lecture on passive vs. aggressive defensive philosophies.
Quote:
Tim.. Vick barely played on Sunday. He clearly couldn't run. He was done after like 3 series'.. so I'm not sure how valid that point is.
Arc... We didn't know that going into the game?? So it's unfair to say that we "sold out the run because we played shitty QB's"... That's crap. Vick and Foles owned us last game .
Huh? Again.. Vick barely played on Sunday and in the few series' he did, he couldn't run and he knew it. We didn't have to respect the QB keeping the football at all, we left one CB on the weakside who barely even had to check and just rushed the RB on every running play because he knew Barkley wasn't going to keep.
Quote:
In comment 11308492 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Tim.. Vick barely played on Sunday. He clearly couldn't run. He was done after like 3 series'.. so I'm not sure how valid that point is.
Arc... We didn't know that going into the game?? So it's unfair to say that we "sold out the run because we played shitty QB's"... That's crap. Vick and Foles owned us last game .
Huh? Again.. Vick barely played on Sunday and in the few series' he did, he couldn't run and he knew it. We didn't have to respect the QB keeping the football at all, we left one CB on the weakside who barely even had to check and just rushed the RB on every running play because he knew Barkley wasn't going to keep.
Arc. My comment was responding to posters saying that its easy to play simplified defense and sell out the run when playing shitty QBs. Well... We didn't know how limited Vick would be going into that game. Vick isn't a shitty QB and has had some good success in Chip's offense. So I think we game planned the same way when facing Freeman and Vick. Simplified yes... But to say that we simply game planned to sell out the run because Vick sucked... Would be inaccurate. IMO
Sorry typo
I'm looking forward to see how we defend Rodgers.
Fewell has been able to put together solid game plans against the Packers the last couple of times we played them so hopefully he can do it again.
mrvax : 11:59 am : link : reply
the fact that it's not really simplification. That's only a part of the improvement. The change in defense (ignoring Beason & Hill) has been the damn philosophy.
Fewell allowed the players to play. He conceded the read & react is not working. The players (especially the front 4) are now playing to attack. Fewell allowed them to forgo the fancy pre-snap adjustments and concentrate on pressuring the QB.
Defenses seem to almost always work better when they attack and not play prevent. That is called a change in philosophy.
When Tuck used the word "simplify", he did so for the simpletons who don't grasp overall defensive schemes and probably never will. Tuck would have been long winded giving a lecture on passive vs. aggressive defensive philosophies.
Sounds an awful lot like "We were able to just focus on one dimensional offenses the past 2 weeks and therefore are able to simplify things" to me.
That no longer applies because one wants to diminish how well the D played?
Our defense does look really good, but we can't just pretend like the QBs aren't/weren't awful.
I think the defense will still look solid against better offenses as long as we play clean offensively.. I've been saying that all year.
The other thing our defense had going against them until recently was the lopsided time of possession. I beg to differ with Chip Kelly about TOP being a meaningless stat.
Who can argue that our 2013 D played worse as the game wore on the first 6 games? Our offense was three and out far too often.
Now with TT getting better, a real good middle linebacker for the first time in years, a nice safety in Hill, this D should continue to improve. Sure the opponent the last 2 games were sub-par but I like what I see. If our front 4 guys can generate pressure on Green Bay's Oline, they can probably hold the bastids to 20 points or less.
My thread about Fewell actually was asking why do many feel we need to fire the guy.
Revisionists cloud the perspective, repeatedly, and disingenously so.
That's all well and good. We know that.
It's the way he disappears for the entire 0-6 start after his yearly proclamation thread about how "special" the Giants can be this year (he does it every year) and then pops up like a bad hemorrhoid the second this team wins 2 games to tell everyone about how he was right all along about Fewell just needing to simplify the defense.. citing it as the "BIGGEST" reason for the defensive play these last 2 weeks.
The biggest reason for the drastic change in results in my mind, are the things I've mentioned a ton of times already. Did the adjustments help? Probably. But Joe seems to be under the impression that Fewell made some major, drastic change but then randomly just goes back to complexity whenever we lose games. I think that notion is silly and far too.. simplistic.
A wrinkle here and there fine, but he trots out whole sale changes based on opponent and more often than not it simply blows up in his face. He has talent, he can get pressure with 4 when he uses his 4 correctly and doesn't overdo his stupid NASCAR formation. He fell in love with Tuck or a DE at DT and when he overuses it, we get zero pressure and can't stop the run. Watch last week's game again, we were rock solid until Barkley came in and Perry started sliding JPP inside more which was I'm sure to increase pressure but it allowed the Eagles to move the ball more effectively on the ground with Kiwi at the end instead of your best edge run defender and JPP inside instead of one of your DTs who have all played great football this season.
That is precisely the type of thing this team talks about when they talk simplification. It happens, every week, in every game and you all can hold hands, sing Kumbaya and pretend to be smarter than everyone else (you're not by the way, I will school each and everyone of you know it alls on the X and Os all day f-ing long). The cool BBI kids all band together and raise their noses at it, but you're all dead fucking wrong here, it's been said repeatedly by players but you all know more than everyone especially when you're all so darn cute with your unified front against anything you don't put out as official stances.
Fewell is forced to do it because he overcomplicates the simple all the fucking time. He played a basic cover 2 man under with Rolle as a LB and TT in the slot (both to watch Vick if he ran) and it completely stifled the Eagles on the ground. THe second Vick went out, he got cute and over adjusted and it almost gashed us. He returned to the original play, let his talent play and attack and we won the game. Rolle and Thomas were again let free to attack (when Vick was in, they held him in the pocket, when he left they vacated and it cost us...then they returned to their original jobs, harassed Barkley because he wasn't running and we came out on top.
Players right. OP right. BBI circle jerk fun club - wrong.
The schizo clown starting these threads, though? Hell no. Again, this is a man who insisted that the Giants run an Alex Gibbs-style zone blocking scheme.
Is it the only reason?....no
Beason, Hill have been huge additions. O is getting better but the defense has been leading this team and await the Offense to start playing at a higher level. In the meantime the defense is towing the line.
We can worry about GB in 3 weeks, all I know is that the last 2 weeks there has been a big difference in this defense.
Oakland Raiders..
“He’s able to take something that might seem complicated, break it down and make it as simple as you can for the players,” Raiders coach Dennis Allen said of Tarver. “I think us as coaches, sometimes we over-coach. When you over-coach, you tend to slow your players down. You want to try to make it as simple as possible so that your players can play fast.”
Kansas City Chiefs...
The one thing the Chiefs have emphasized all week is to keep things simple.
"It's different getting ready for that offense," linebacker Derrick Johnson said. "It's difficult because it's different. But we will simplify it. We have a good game plan."
Michael Griffin of the Titans during camp about being excited about the Titans simplifying the defense...
http://www.titansonline.com/media-center/videos/Michael-Griffin-excited-about-simplified-defense/d6399289-58f3-4adb-96e5-75333ee73c84
You get the point.
You presented evidence from actual analysis. Powerful post. Thank you. Made me shift my opinion (which was that communication was simplified and some shifts were pared back)
blowing up a quote and tying it back to Rod Rust just struck me as lazy
Now...I could ask further...is that simplification...or Fewell being just plain wrong?
Which one? Bad coaching with a flawed guy with bad habits ...or too complex?
Players are mad because of complexity or stupidity but have to call it simplicity to be PC?
Because all kinds of humans can learn to perform very complex schemes and proceedures very well
Outstanding.
I really hope Gilbride learns the same lesson. If they are going to keep him around, he really needs to lay off all the complex route decisions that makes great QB's like Eli Manning look stupid with INT after INT.
It's great to be smart enough to come up with hundreds of little nuances but the guys on the field have to be allowed to just play to their abilities without worrying about a truck load of what if's.
an hour a day. No time to learn..should have played 1st
few games basic packages and added a little every week..
plus we had a lot of diferant players every week...keep it
basic and focus on little things..like turnovers, penalties,ect..like Eagles game we still have delay penalties., off sides, celebrations,ect..which are more important to correct,,did I forget bad snap....5 FG's..
no TD plays inside 20...this is what they need to work on
Joey.. I don't think "simplification opponents" exist in this argument. Did you read through the thread or just read the OP and skim through like 5 of the comments?
No one seems opposed to anything that helps the defense play better, but can anyone really debate that personnel upgrades, the QB's we've played the past 2 weeks and the offense not turning the football over have played a pretty big role in the drastic change in results rather than just this simplification?
The argument (at least the ones from Jersey Joe), have been that the simplification is the only reason the team has success. That we NEED to simplify to win. If we don't do it, we lose.
And it still begs the question - if simplification is the answer and everyone knows it, why the hell do they go back to being complex in losses and magically simplify things in wins.
The opposition has never said that there is no simplification - that's Joe's strawman because he can't effective argue any of his points.
The difference is Jersey Joe bases the defense getting better by removing plays from the playbook. My point is instead of having defenders playing read and react, have them play assignment then attack.
If you haven't yet, don't. It's not worth it.
I also think I have my answer as to why people go batshit on this topic.Coming back and rereading the thread, it's apparent the reaction is to Gman Dynasty, and not the topic itself so much. It's also interesting I started the thread but everyone is arguing with the other guy.
ANYWAY,my opinions falls in line with what Vince said in his 9:19 post, his words are better than maine, but what I thinbk is Ultimately fewell shortened the decision cycle for the players enabling them to be more effective.see below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop
Observe, orient, decide, react. If you can go through the process quicker than your opponent, all other things being equal, you win.
Perhaps the emphasis on what the sheme is or isn't is nowhere near as important as the overall result. As long as players can get through the OOda loop, or boyd cycle quicker, it's all good stuff, whether fewell Simplified things or Beason cleaned up their comms however he did it.
I'm not married to the idea that the " scheme" had to be simplified, as much as the idea that SOMETHING had to be "simplified" to enable the players to react faster.I still ultimatley hold fewell resonsible, for after all, ultimately his job title is Defensive COORDINATOR.It is the coordinating itself ultimately that was lacking.Apparently Beason is able to handle that aspect of it.I'm not a fan of fewell, and don't like his basic schemes, I kinda wish he'd move on , but in the end All I really care is about the job getting done.
Since I started the thread I've read what other posters have said and altered my impressions to a point, like making distinctions between simplifying " things" or Comms" and simplifying scheme.
Honestly I don't know enough about X's and O's to present myself as some kind of authority. What I know is what I see on the field, game in and game out every week.Between the Communication issues ( which some say haven't existed this year, I disagree) and whatever else is going on it was apparent SOMETHING beyond lack of Physical ability was affecting the defense.Eric himself Lamented that he didn't understand it, there is too much talent on the roster to justify the shit shows we saw in September.
They made an adjustment wherein things are simpler, SOMETHING is simpler, and like I said I'm not married to an argument over scheme per se as much as the fact that HOWEVER shit was being run we weren't getting inside the other teams decision cycle and were operating in a manner that hindered our own.
I think when you replace Mark Herzlich with Jon Beason, you just massively upgraded a crucial spot. When you add an athletic player like Will Hill who flies around the field and makes plays, I think that also makes a big difference.
But the other thing is that I don't think the defense was ever quite playing as poorly as the numbers suggested this year. We were turning the ball over at a historic rate. Points were being scored on us without the defense even being on the field and the defense was just forced to be on the field way too much in general.
D has been the only thing keeping this 2-6 team from being an even uglier, 2009-style ugly team.
On offense, hell just watch the delay of game penalties.
GmenDynasty : 6:17 am : link : reply
Or being in love with something so much that you ignore all the other signs until you are basically pounded into the ground with it's failure?
This organization LOVES read and react principles in their schemes. Because in theory if it is executed perfectly it can be almost impossible to stop both offensively and defensively. Problem is these are football players playing the game not robots. Too much complexity and or in play adjustments and guys are playing passively and not aggressively anymore. Your greatest athletes look slow and tenative. It's like a ball and shackles for your entire team.
Also can everyone please stop with the zone blocking red herring
No one is perfect
GmenDynasty : 5:04 am : link : reply
And we are all fans here. We will have some things we are right on and some things we are wrong on too. On a totally unrelated topic, I admit I misspoke on the OL being a zone blocking one.
Not trying to play white knight here, but a witch hunt has ruined what could have been an interesting thread
Or that he conveniently runs away from points he can't refute and just lumps anyone who disagrees with him as a "blind hater" or starts classifying people within threads.
It's impossible to have a legitimate football discussion with him because he accuses everyone else of "not being able to admit they're wrong" when they're not necessarily wrong and then runs and hides instead of ever admitting when HE'S wrong.
Given his posting history here, I don't think people are being all that unfair.
Id respect the guy a lot more if he could just admit that he made up the bit about the zone blocking schemes, didn't know who Fewell was before we hired him (but insisted that the Giants HAD TO hire him) and stopped posting the same regurgitated nonsense year after year whether it's about how great the Giants will be, the complex schemes or the woe is me fibromyalgia thread.
Area junction gives some fairly balanced and comprehensive response when responding to the dopey question" well, if making things simple worked before then why don't they do it all the time".
A simple scheme that half a retard can dissect is not what people are arguing for or what we are saying, at least not what I'm saying.I think, also like area junction does, that once beason finishes cleaning shit up that fewell will be able to do all his shit and call all his plays the way he likes.He also explained fairly well why he would go back to doing it the way he was in the first place.
The point is that when there is an overall level of dysfunction, for whatever the reason, the added burden of doign what
as to those asking "why" did he go back to his old ways in 2012 and the start of this year?Area junc says it best in his 10:01 post:
"think of perry's D similar to Gilbride's O. Several built in checks based on what the offense does to the point where the original play call means very little. perry has scrapped all the checks or as T2 put it "too many adjustments".
now they run the play called in the huddle, insuring that all 11 guys play the same D on every snap."
To me that sums it up.If Beason wants adjustments, he calls them.
Joe can be quite stubborn about this "simplify" concept. Don't know if you were here but he used to go on and on about this for the offense.
I'm not sure I'd put much stock in his posts.. but that's just me.
he was talking about GmenDynasty not you
Next time, buy him some flowers before you ask him out on a date.
I read GmanDynasty's first post and thought " good stuff" until I got to #4, then i'm like "Hurrrr????So clearly there are dynamics at play I don't understand.That seemd off when i read it, and kinda thought the same thing, what a shame to waste good points on what was apparently some ongoing Pissing festival.
I agree with everything you said in your 2:58 post, arc, but what it boils down to for me is this, and I will throw Gman dynasty a bone here because I think he is spot on:
"This organization LOVES read and react principles in their schemes. Because in theory if it is executed perfectly it can be almost impossible to stop both offensively and defensively. Problem is these are football players playing the game not robots. Too much complexity and or in play adjustments and guys are playing passively and not aggressively anymore. Your greatest athletes look slow and tenative. It's like a ball and shackles for your entire team."
Perhaps Joey in VA says it better, but to me I read them and they both say the same thing to me.Doesn't mean I don't see all the other factors that you do involved, it's just that I see this as an ongoing thing, the failure to adapt to changed situations by the coaching staff.With a healthy focused roster The defense runs great, no denying it.Yes, I think they are a bit better than they get credit for.I also think the offense put them in shit situations all year, and injuries fucked them and all that.I also think if they get their shit together they can be dominant.
Link - ( New Window )
1. Some are blind coaching apologists(also for a variety of reasons in itself) People who invariably take a 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 generailty 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. Coaches 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 failure to come up with a sound system. Players here as well as coaches are very careful and deliberate in what they 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 descredit 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! Quite honestly , I love this one: A person gives 10 reasons why he strongly believes something. An opposer of that assertion (or sadly someone who is just trying to flame the poster due to blind hatred) finds 1 of the 10 reasons to not be perfectly sound and goes on a diatribe trying to descredit the poster's credibility while totally ignoring the nine other points. Fatman,jlukes and arcarsenal are absolute masters of this one! You'll NEVER hear one of these 'holier than thou' posters admit they are wrong!!!
As for simplification and impact on performance:
Look no further than our collective defensive performances after the 2 main publicized times of simplification of the D. The first time we heard about them simplifying was at 7-7 looking dead in the water in the 2011 season (all quotes and links on my other thread). We went 6-0 with the D playing near lights out on the way to a Super Bowl victory.
Now you see quotes that they clearly simplified in the seond half of the Bears game and we haven't let up a single TD in 10 quarters! Knock down the competition all you want but this is the NFL. No TDs in 10 quarters is a heck of a start. I still don't trust Fewell but at least I'm encouraged we are finally taking a step coaching wise in the right direction.
Regarding the refusing to stick with what works and going back to heavy read and react principles:
One word, Stubborness. Or being in love with something so much that you ignore all the other signs until you are basically pounded into the ground with it's failure....
This organization LOVES read and react principles in their schemes. Because in theory if it is executed perfectly it can be almost impossible to stop both offensively and defensively. Problem is these are football players playing the game not robots. Too much complexity and or in play adjustments and guys are playing passively and not aggressively anymore. Your greatest athletes look slow and tenative. It's like a ball and shackles for your entire team.
Unfortunately, It's been going on for years from Rod Rust to Perry Fewell and it goes all the way up to ownership and their philosophies.
Regarding the O over the years:
The offense has had talent for years but you wonder why this team doesn't perform more conistently offensively than it should. The streak read principal offense has to be run with so much precision if one thing goes wrong it all seems to fall apart.
It's why guys like Bennet,Shockey,Murphy ,Manningham and even the supposedly super polished Randle have so much trouble with running right routes executing assignments etc. Its why Eli for years was unstoppable in the 2 minute offense when we basically ran 6 or 7 plays from it and guys that stunk all game running wrong routes would look unstoppable.
The bulk of the OP in this thread was asking why does it draw an evisceral reaction from so many posters when the whole " simplification " thing comes up, even if players and coaches themselves say it. But I got my answer.It was as much about the posters themselves and their histories as it was about the actual idea.
One word, Stubborness. Or being in love with something so much that you ignore all the other signs until you are basically pounded into the ground with it's failure....
Is ironic
Anyway.. GWG.. here's the thing. It's great to let the players play and utilize their athleticism and not think so much, etc.. but it's the NFL. It's an extremely complex league. You can simplify some languages and communications but the entire point of schemes are to generate matchup advantages and to do that, you DO need some complexity. There's a line between confusing your own players and your opposition but coordinators need to find the balance.
Maybe Fewell has tried to do too much at times. I don't know. There are so many things that go on in the meeting rooms and the sidelines and there's just no way for us to be privy to all those things and really know all of the details of everything going on.
All I know is that the coordinator needs to have his guys in a position where they feel comfortable executing but also needs to install game plans and schemes that will create opportunities and 1 on 1 matchups for the most talented players.. which brings us to talent. And I think it's clear we've gotten a little better in that regard these last few weeks which has certainly aided the defensive resurgence, IMO.
Anyway. My only emphasis all along is that it's not quite as "simple" as Joe seems to think it is. You can only dumb a defense down so much. It's not a playground where you just say "hey, go follow that guy wherever he goes and if he gets the ball, tackle him". There is an insane amount of game planning and prep work that goes into every single NFL game. To just sit here and think that all Perry Fewell needs to do is make everything easy all the time is naive.
It's an important distinction.
There are many here who have made it personal. Adding to this is, I have called out the complicated schemes on this team years before the multiple quotes and articles came out confirming it both on offense and on defense.
When the fool can't even figure out what the argument is, there's little hope for him to come up with anything original to refute it.
And yet again way to go off topic. Still can't admit the D was simplified?! my goodness to try to get you to admit you are wrong about something ...nope you are too mighty for that! Go on word-smithing and playing with semantics to descredit others while really agreeing with them, you are definitely a pro at that...kudos...
I know this because a lot of people claimed it was all he did last year (which was not entirely true but he did play off more than he pressed and I think it was because he didn't think he had the personnel to play that way with Webster having a broken hand and a bad hammy).. so I've been paying way more attention to it this year and he's had the DB's up on the line on the vast majority of the plays.
It's funny.. you can treat that guy like some know it all but when I point out how foolish he's been in the past, I'm an asshole. Facts are facts. You want to use him as some source of knowledge, I'm more than allowed to call out the bullshit.
Nope...didn't think so...but please keep on dancing around it with semantics and empty rhetoric
If a guy who would be a clear upgrade is available and they want to replace him, so be it. But if he loses his job after this year, it'll probably have happened in the year he deserves it least because in my mind, he's done a pretty decent job this year all things considered. We've won with him before, we can do it again. I wouldn't be upset if they gave him a new 2 year deal.
Joe.. when you figure out what the crux of this entire discussion is, feel free to let us know. Or you can continue to copy and paste stuff you posted 2 years ago. No one's reading it. There's nothing for me to admit I was "wrong" about. I posted 3 examples of other teams "simplifying" their defense. Every team makes adjustments. You didn't find anything unique here and your claim that it is the "biggest" reason for the Giants playing better lately simply isn't true.
What most of us supposed #4's have been saying is that football is not a basic game. It is not just a simple fix that leads to success or failure. Most of us have the wherewithall to realize changes are constantly being made.
Only YOU seem to argue that simplification is the only reason for success and absent of simplifying things, the team will lose. It is a laughable and ridiculous argument.
You also are one of the most ironic motherfuckers here. Your entire #4 classification talks about blind flaming. What the fuck do you think it is when you address arc or me? You can't refute our points, so you call us #4's, high and mighty, and a bunch of other fancy bullshit.
Even as much as I think you are a raging fuckstick, I at least try to refute your arguments like I did in the first paragraph. You don't even give us that courtesy.
Want to try and tackle the question on why if simplifying things is the way to win, why the team makes things complex the rest of the time and only needs to makes things simple to get back to winning?
Keep thinking everyone who disagrees is a #4 or whatever classification you decide in the future - it is just another smokescreen you use to avoid answering questions. SIMPLE questions.
Fucking irony.
At that point, a number of posters pointed out that man coverage was being utilized and it wasn't strictly a zone defense, so JerseyJoe ever so slightly tweaked his argument to the vague term "simplification," which can constitute anything more intricate than "SEE THAT GUY IN FRONT OF YOU? RUN WITH HIM."
At that point, JerseyJoe began to cite quotes with the word "simplification" or any other derivation of the term "simple." Furthermore, he asserted that this easy-ifying (thanks for ruining the word "simple" within the context of BBI for me, JJ) was the ONLY reason that the defense's play began to improve. However, when people brought up other valid points for the improvement in the defense, AS WELL AS referencing defensive adjustments, they were dismissed with extreme prejudice because the REAL FACTOR was the less-difficultization of the scheme. It remained a Black and White argument, with JerseyJoe's argument representing white. It's actually a pretty good metaphor, when you realize that white is the combination of all visible wavelengths of light, and the term "simplification" is so vague and non-committal that it can pretty much include everything.
When your argument isn't an actual argument, but rather the loose definition of a term, it's pretty hard to lose it.
Moreover, our friend JerseyJoe is the king of shifting arguments ever so slightly until he gets to a "defensible" point.
And the "admission of being wrong" cited earlier in this thread isn't even an admission. He used the phrase "I misspoke." How does one "misspeak" the exact opposite argument? If I had a wife and said "Honey, I fucking hate you," and then followed it up with, "Sorry I misspoke, I actually love you," I'd get punched in the fucking mouth. And rightfully so. And that is also not taking into account the fact that it took however many years for our friend over here to admit not that he was wrong, but that MAYBE he wasn't right.
To use a brilliant JerseyJoe colloquialism that I will never forget, I hope my post has "run the gambit" of why so many people on here pile on our friend.
Watch the PDOT interview he had on the field and see for yourself.
Fewell to me has bogged down several players on this team with overcomplicated schemes. I can't say why, but that just seems to be the case to me. Hence that's why all this commentary on the latest meeting and the comments that have followed and of course the tangible results on the field.
Anyway.. Aspano pretty much summed it up. This is what Joe does. Impossible to argue with. Like I've already brought up.. Joe thought Fewell was a "MUST HIRE" back in 2010 when he literally had no idea who Perry Fewell even was. That tells you all you need to know here.
It's almost like watching somebody kick a dog.
Joe to this day has never answered why if simplification was such a cornerstone to success, both coordinators decided to make things complex again in 2012.
I notice Joe's rants about simplicity coincide eerily with winning streaks. I guess that means when we lose, his assumption is the coaches fucked up again by going back to these uber-complex ideas and only until they see the error of their ways will we be allowed to win again.
Even his view of what it takes to win and lose sounds simple.
I don't know how many times I have to point out that I agree the Giants adjust things at times. Yet he apparently ignores those posts and instead I'm just a mean guy - but I guess one that uses big words.
Maybe too big for a fucking simpleton.
Anyways the points you are claiming I haven't addressed have been discussed earlier. You just flat out missed that too.
I never said it is the ONLY reason but it is one of the biggest ones. Stop reading blindly and actually read what is being said.
Many posters vehemently fought the simplification argument and many said it didn't even happen. Even those that did 'admit it' tried to word-smith it like FMiC and say it was an adjustment not a simplification. Never acknowledging the D was easier to run which helped the players play better and more agressively and instinctlively on the field vs over-thinking and playing passively.
At this point, you've turned simple adjustments into your grand simplification scheme to fit your argument.
Evan Roberts asked Antrel Rolle just this afternoon what happened during halftime and what they changed and Rolle said "we really didn't change much at all we just made some small adjustments" to paraphrase.
You've been beating this drum that the defense is too complex for years now but you don't say what it is about the defense that is too complex. Is it the language? The assignments? The coverages? The fact that you probably don't understand the first thing about NFL defenses (the coaches in this league have forgotten more about football than most of us will ever even know) just makes the whole thing sound silly.
This thread has been hijacked by some ancient pissing Festival that has fuckall to do with football. Just stop.
I'm not asking for you to copy and paste what other people think.
But you've already shown that you're not able to figure it out for yourself so you'll just copy and paste more of Thomas' posts.. which I'm not interested in.
And I keep going back to the logic that if simplification is the biggest reason for success, then why do the coaches supposedly go back and make it complex again? Why not stick with what's working.
What I've been consistent about is that the team has always made adjustments - it is a fluid game.
I've also been consistent is saying you have been terrible at your argumentation. You:
1) Misspeak constantly regarding terms or are flat out wrong. i.e. passing trees and zone blocking schemes
2) Keep reposting the same things over and over again that don't prove any point you are trying to make
3) Continue to have horrendous logic
Every thread like this I answer the points about simplification as best I can. What do you do? You repost quotes from years ago, classify anyone with a dissenting position as a flamer, and refuse to address questions.
You shouldn't confuse my strong argumentation against your weak points as not acknowledging there has been ANY simplification. What you need to understand is that simplification isn't the main reason for success.
I'll also say this - for years you've talked about simplifying the offense. Well, with the OL in the state it is and the RB's we have, they've clearly done that recently, but instead you've actually decided to focus on the defense.
Even a chance where we might agree and you can't even get that fucking right.
Now, I'm more than sure the people on this thread would be willing to have a thoughtful discussion about the topic, in fact, even go into the X's and O's details. But before it happens, JJ chimes in with his "I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG" nonsense. And because he's been doing it for so long, and not citing concrete, tactical examples, but rather deflecting any type of criticism or request for insight, this topic no longer has any hope of being an intelligible discussion.
It's gotten to the point where even the owner of the site has called him out, saying "not this simplification shit again" (see the other thread started by our beloved).
One poster's childish demeanor and refusal to be wrong has eternally damned an interesting topic for discussion. You could also blame the regulars who call him out on this every time he types for exacerbating the problem, but the root of the problem is from what I mentioned a few posts up, and it's broken beyond repair.
Sucks.
Also, it tends to be in my nature that I only speak about things that I am 100% sure of. This happens to be one of those things, hah. Oh, and soccer. Kind of.
Joey's data based argument gives some credence to the concept of "simplification"
But....if I am a player and I need to get information to a bad coach....ID ask for "simplification"...when what I really meant was "stop doing stupid adjustments that don't work....im happy to do complex things that do"
And I say "simplification" to the press as if it was a mutual victory when it was simply bad coaching
Now do I have any data whatsoever for that speculation? Zilch. Other than humans in groups and organizations do use such tactics to move bad managers into useful zones
My issue with all of this is that I just don't believe any of us are in any position to know
And so I think when we advance supposition as if it was so clear as to be certain....the burden of an unprovable is on the one making the argument....its the mantle of certainty on both sides that seems silly to me
We cannot see inside the heads of others
To me Joeys post is more fuel that Fewell is too often prone to mediocre.
Makes me wonder why players instead of TC or Reese have to corral such dopey-ness
If I were ti use the word adjustment, I would likely be talking about doing something different as a response to what the opposing team was doing. If i were to use the word simplification,I would be talking about putting less of a diagnostic role on the player, either making calls simpler to understand, or having less options once the play started, or less responsibilities. If I say simplify, I'm talking more about making my own operation more streamlined, adjustments is a tactical response to what the other team is doing. to me they are 2 different things. You can argue an overlap whereby option are cut out when simplifying things, so that they have an effect on adjustments because there are less options available, but to me simplify is less about playcalling and gameplanning than it is about running a smooth operation that isn't complex to the point players fuck up their responsibilities, or aren't in a position to capitalize on the other teams msitakes simply because they couldnt make a decision, or made the wrong one due to miscommunication or different players interpretting things differently, thus resulting in confused responsibilities and ultimately lapses in coverage.
In that context I'm not as interetested in Fewells " adjustments" as I am In "simplification". Some agreement on terminology might help untangle this fischemelled mess of a thread.
I tip my cap to you, sir.
We may not have all-world talent, but I'd like to see the coaches get more out of what we currently have.
They writing is right there in the archives. The defensive players in 2011 said they got rid of the pre-snap checks that caused a lot of confusion/not-on-the-same-page type of deals which plagued the defense a ton in 2011... if people remember
fewell said after the championship run that the defense got more complex. of course it did. game plan-wise it absolutely got as complex and sophisticated as it has been all season. It has to be. Its the damn playoffs
They just simplified one aspect. I wouldn't even call it simplifying. Just an "adjustment" like one poster said
This year tho? IDK. The second half of the Chicago game, the defense gambled with more man coverage and the bears didn't take advantage. They also got some luck with stalled drive due to penalties and what not from the bears, the bend don't break stuff worked. Chicago couldnt finish drives.
Anyone who was watched the giants all year knows they've been good in run defense save for the Carolina game. Before the last two games, they gave up yards to scrambling QBs and they got torched against Denver when they didn't even really respect it. That aspect didn't change at all
Bingo! That's exactly what a lot of us have said and this aspect of the argument never gets addressed by Joe. Mainly because he doesn't have a good response. Easier to simply repaste quotes that he's used years ago. A completely valid method of argumentation....
There are upsides and downsides to that.
There are quarterbacks in this league that feast on defenses like that. One of which is related to ours.
Fewell didn't "simplify the defense". They simplified the pre-snap checks.
Nothing has changed schematically.
you guys are the kings of semantics just so you can say you won an internet debate
It says.. "It's pretty clear from what players have been saying lately they thought the schemes were too complex, and weren't working."
This isn't about the schemes. Fewell never changed the scheme.
Where does the scheme start and stop exactly?
Think of it this way.. when people talk about the offense being too complicated, they're complaining about all of the option routes and reads the QB and WR's make based on the coverages they see. If Eli limits his pre-snap checks and stops calling audibles and just goes with the original play, we're not changing the offense. We're still running the same complex system. We're just coming up to the line and going with the play called in the huddle regardless of what Eli sees when he gets to the line.
See the difference?
A coaching scheme that asks the players to do the coaches job for them and make the adjustments isn't coaching at all, it's sloughing their job off onto the players.It's unimaginative and lazy.It asks the players to do all the headwork.
I think "scheme" is going to be the new "#1 WR"
OP has been disingenous, incorrect, completely lacking football knowledge, and correct on a very few small bullets of info by sheer luck.
I don't think Great White Ghost expected to step into this kind of a mess with his opening.
from Glory days
TT & Tuck's comments today about the simplified defense....
GloryDayz : 10/28/2013 7:10 pm : link : reply
Quote:
CB Terrell Thomas
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 )
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.
Again.. NOTHING CHANGED SCHEMATICALLY.
We are running the same defense we have been running all year. The adjustments were pre-snap checks. They either reduced them or took them out altogether which means they are coming out of the huddle and running whichever call was made there. We're not running new plays. It's the equivalent of Eli coming to the line and regardless of the coverage he sees, sticking with the play he called in the huddle. No shifts or adjustments. No audibles. Just running that play. Which would not be changing the offensive system. The option routes would still be there. The actual plays would be the same. We would simply not be changing them at the line.
How hard is this for you to figure out?
Don't see how it's not part of the defense, don't see how it isn't simpler without it, and was EXACTLY what I was talking about.You can argue all you want but you may as well put your balls on a falt rock and bash them with a hammer for all the good it well do. You are having nothing but a savage wank fest if you want to argue that eliminating pre snap checks isn't simplifying the defense.
How the fuck can you call GmanDynasty a stubborn bastard when some of you do the same fucking shit and play the same jerkoff games. is total bullshit.
It is a quite the change vs. calling predominantly long developing and/or multi-option plays where EVERYONE is a primary read and EACH reciever has up to 5 passing trees to choose from. That type of playcalling could make virtually any Qb's head swim (along with recievers high on AA but short on cerebral ability like Shock and Plax- hence the NUMEROUS mis-reads with a reciever going one way ball going the other).
This is him saying actual plays were changed or eliminated.
Nevertheless, this thread has probably gotten caught in that argument (and I'm partially to blame). But you seem to be falling into the same trap Joe did. Who is saying things weren't simplified? I know I'm not. I've used both the terms adjustments and simplifications.
Nobody is denying changes have been made, and frankly changes are constantly made, winning or losing. What is being debated is what affect have those changes made and is it the primary reason for success. Ad if it is the primary reason for success, why does Joe and a couple other posters continue to believe that we go back and intentionally make the schemes complex and only start winning when they are dumbed down again? It also doesn't explain why we start years off with great records (traditionally) and when the losing streak hits, we have to dumb things down to win again.
I dn't think anyone is saying your premise that Tuck asked Fewell to make changes is faulty, I just think the JerseyJoe carryover submarined teh thread.
Don't see how it's not part of the defense, don't see how it isn't simpler without it, and was EXACTLY what I was talking about.You can argue all you want but you may as well put your balls on a falt rock and bash them with a hammer for all the good it well do. You are having nothing but a savage wank fest if you want to argue that eliminating pre snap checks isn't simplifying the defense.
How the fuck can you call GmanDynasty a stubborn bastard when some of you do the same fucking shit and play the same jerkoff games. is total bullshit.
First off. Calm down.
Second of all.. you said in the OP the "scheme was too complex". Changing the pre-snap checks doesn't change the scheme, though. Changing the checks is simplifying, adjusting the defense, sure.. but that doesn't effect the actual scheme.
Third.. I am so insanely tired of this argument. I'm throwing in the towel.
Listen, I kinda like you, don't want to have some long term
issue here either.
FMiC, I respect your knowledge and opinions,Where we differ is you think simpler adhutments were made.adjutments can be anything, and like you say are done all the time.That isn't my point. They were made simpler.the adjustment of more complex presnap reads, newer more complex playcallign to confuse opponents, newer more complex schemes, and giving players additional responsibilities during plays were not the type of adjustments i was alluding too, I I dare to say not what Justin Tuck, Antrelle Rolle Or Terrell Thomas were referring to either. While any change is an adjustment, my position is the made things SIMPLER, not simply changed, or adjusted.
Biggest change really is beason, and Beason I suspect did more than anyone else to eliminate the pre snap read, as Roole put it, byt "making things snappy" so personell is a huge part.
You ask the question repeatedly " if making things simpler worked then why do coaches make things complex again".To me that is a self apparent answer.They make things simplers because the players are unable to execute othersie, either because they are injured, absent, dealing with additional resonsibilities covering for the injured or absent, or they are too inexperienced to execute, I.E., they simply don't know the defense as well.Maybe they are dumb plaers at spots.
Situations change. Plaeyrs learn to play better, guys recover from injuries, new guys come in, the roster gets stronger.Mybe some positional weakness is adressed that allows the coaches more options and more plays.
The point is simply this Personell issues may require a simplification of the defense in certain aspects, and when those limitations are no longer there more options open up for playcalling. It's not complicated.
I am also with arc here though. Adjustments, simplifications, whatever the jargon aside - I do not believe that these changes ALONE are what gave us two wins. I don't even if I agree that they are the main reason. Because once we start playing better teams again and we inevitably give up 30 points again, will it be because the calls were made more complex? That's the difference between you and Joe's arguments. You haven't stubbornly tried to say that the team has to make simplifications to win a Super Bowl. You haven't claimed that simplification is the main driver to long-term success. You've directly tied a quote from Tuck and others to show where modifications were made and we had positive outcomes since then.
It is a long path to take that will get you to Joe's point where he claims we NEED to simplify or we will lose. Becauset hat's where the logic falls flat - he can't (and won't) ever determine when the complexity gets added back in. He just beats the same drum and pastes the same quotes over and over.
How about the reason they've go 2 wins is that they have a NFL starting MLB calling out defensive plays. How about the secondary playing better. or Tuck and Kiwi figuring out how to get to the passer?
Maybe, Fewell drew a picture in the sand and said, "this is the QB, and drew some lines from the DE's to the QB and said, "this is how you get to him"..
And, Joe, are you getting closer to admitting Randle> Jeffrey & Hill?
Since you keep bringing up GmanDynasty/ jerseyjoe, I'll throw in my 2 cents.it's clear several factors were involved in this 10 quarter scoreless streak, including roster health and new personell.I'm about making the team better, not assigning blame so much.
As for your quarrell with joe, it's clear he's combative and likes to argue. It seems you and arc enjoy it almost as much. what I think is you and arc know a lot more than he does, have better control of your selves, and even when he has a valid point, like simplifying the defense helps us win right now,your able to outsmart him by playing him against himself, using his tunnel vision against him. He's like a dog with a bone that ain't letting go.Even with his point having some validity he can't win.I look at it and am reminded of what Maharbal said to Hannibal " You may know how to win a battle, but you don't know what to do with it.
I'd also be shocked if he actually believed what you say he does.Were you to ask him very simply " do you think simpliffying the defense is the only difference in the giants defensive turnaround" I doubt he'd day yes.If he does then he is what you say he is.This is clearly an ongoing issue with you guys and you are all invested at this point.Pride keeps it going, i think.Noone is going to change their opinion at this point ( although i see , in this thread and the other one you have attempted to moderate yours)because noone wants to give the other party the opportunity to say " see, I told you so, I'm right".
I don't have a dog in the fight myself.But I think it would be nice to have these discussions without every other thread getting hijacked by this nonsense.there's currently, what, 3 different threads going on now that have degenerated into this same argument over some old zone sceme or whatever shit that carries on into just about every decent discussion going on.The more mature dude would take steps to resolve it.I suspect Gman is a bit younger than you.
That was from 2008!
I think the main reason arc and I latch onto this isn't some dick measuring contest with Joe. It is the fact he put out a shitty argument originally and stands by that shitty argument. If that was all, I'd have given up the fight long ago, but he hasn't stopped there. He's continued to claim arc and I have said things we didn't. I'm always going to set the record straight as to where I stand.
What I don't get is that he's created an argument that doesn't exist. It went from being that the Giants eliminated plays to now that arc and I said they never changed a thing. And how does he present that? By calling us some made up #4 category, by calling us elitists, and even slamming me for using big words, which I guess is only an insult in a room full of vocabulary morons.
He continually asks me to present evidence to disprove that I said there was NO simplification and I do that time and again( I know, shame on me for playing). Meanwhile, when I ask for the same level of proof from him, he presents nada and will regurgitate the nonsense of the day. Like the stupid 4 categories he BS'ed up.
Maybe it is useless, but as long as he references me, I'm going to argue that he's a fucking moron the best I can, and frankly I don't even have to be all that great to accomplish it.
For me.. I enjoy it if it remains football related and productive. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again. Admitting to being wrong isn't something I have a problem with. It's just impossible to argue with Joe. The topic never gets a chance to evolve and grow and be worthwhile because he has these sticking points that he refuses to leave behind. He copies and pastes these massive paragraphs over and over in the same thread (and other threads).. stuff from years ago that we've seen 100 times already. Then he goes into "you're all blind haters" mode where he accuses us of name calling or being elitists (ironic, no?).
It just gets frustrating and impossible to deal with after a while.
I've had numerous debates with a ton of different posters here over the years.. I've been right about things, I've been wrong about things.. none of that matters. To me, it's just about learning more and talking about shit that is relevant or interesting or whatever. These "simplification" things always just turn into "I TOLD YOU!! YOU WERE WRONG!!" and they don't go anywhere because Joe doesn't allow them to.
There's a reason why so many posters have become so irritated by him. It's not just some "let's gang up on this idiot" type thing. He brings it on himself and he does it on purpose. If that's how he wants to be.. so be it.
I commend FMiC and arc for their persistence in trying to correct JerseyJoe and his persistence of trying to "simplify" everything..I pretty much am tired of talking about the defense this year. Everyone has their mind already made up about how bad Fewell and the defense without even looking closely at the factors on why it was bad and why it may have turned around this year..