Seems that on either side of the ball they simplify things at some point over the course of the season . Why not simplify things from Day 1 and go from there? Why wait till you have 5 bad Offensive or Defensive games before you simplify?
Show me anywhere where that was said???
CRICKETS
Again and try to combine reading and comprehension with this...The scheme was SIMPLIFIED, these are the words of COACHES AND PLAYERS. I promise you I'm not makingthis up. I don't know what issue some of you have with that word "simplfied", but this in FACT took place. How much of the scheme and/or game plans have been SIMPLIFIED can be questioned, but there is NO DOUBT that the COACHES SIMPLIFIED the schemes/playbook in a way that has allowed the players to play better. It's a FACT not an OPINION.
Holy crap. YOU keep saying it. You just said they "simplified the scheme".
Do you know what a scheme is? They didn't simplify or change anything about the scheme. They're still running the same 4-3 defense with the same coverages they've been running all year. The "simplification" is that they're not changing plays at the LOS based on what the offense shows.
LOL it's OK Fatman ,please come up with another one
of youre of so witty dissertations on why SIMPLIFICATION IS NOT REALLY SIMPLIFICATION
Or when that's really not working so well for ya anymore
let's backtrack and say: 'ok well now there might be a simplification but it is only one small little itty bitty thing' or 'it's one of soooo many factors and all the OTHER factors make up 99% of the reason there is an improvement!'
LOL keep it up! You're doing great!
It's not that hard to just admit you were wrong buddy. Yes your elelphant size pride might take a hit but in the end you would have been man enough to just come clean.
BBI elitists go read all the quotes.....The simplification
GmenDynasty : 2:07 pm : link : reply
was on more than one level including the pass rush schemes but yes please carry on trying to figure out how simplifying DOESN'T really mean simplifying.
Except for the fact that none of the players said anything about "simplifying the pass rush schemes". Everything I've seen has been about checks and pre-snap adjustments. This isn't about "simplifying the pass rush schemes".
I am not good with words and I think you explained it the way it needed to be explained.
It isn't that they changed the system. It was simplified by eliminating adjustments at pre-snap. The players having to not only worry about their assignments but what defense are they going to run and what is their responsibility when the ball is snapped. I never thought they changed the defense itself. But the way you explained it is the way it was simplified.
They simplified the approach. To me, that is everything when the players only have to worry about what they need to do.
If you call a defense for 3rd and 12 and worry about running that defense and not the fact they came to the line differently than expected and try to adjust to that makes it easier to focus on your responsibility.
reverted to me saying we never changed a thing before?
That's what you've had to resort to? Since day 1, I said we made changes. I even agreed that they simplified the terminology.
But MORE IMPORTANTLY, I said that was not the main reason for success, nor was it considered simplifying the scheme. You flat out said we removed pages form the playbook. You flat out said the schemes were dumbed down.
But in your million tries to repaste shit, you keep ignoring that. You started with an incorrect premise and it has actually gotten worse since then. Now, you are trying to argue that I said NO changes took place which is an outright lie.
Par for the course, but an outright, fucking lie.
Show me a post where I said nothing changed. I can actually go back into the archives where you said pages were taken out of the playbook. Show me wherever I said nothing was changed at all.
the defense was simplified. In this case it was simplified by not changing the scheme but by eliminating some things they were doing after the defense was called.
Find me a quote from a player who says that during half time of the Bears game, they "simplified the pass rush scheme".
Here's one article you linked..
Quote:
The key? Eliminating so many calls.
"I think, you know, Perry is pretty good at scheming, he really is," Justin Tuck said. "But sometimes you can have so much and it slows you down because, mentally, you're thinking about all the checks you have."
From the newsday article..
Quote:
They were getting bogged down with calls and checks and all of the intricacies involved in their system. They wanted it simplified.
Quote:
Tuck called it a "check with me'' defense that the Giants played for most of the first half of the season. And rather than being upset with the coach who put them in that situation, Tuck said he's happy things seem to have been straightened out.
I see a lot of guys talking about checks. I see absolutely nothing about "simplifying the pass rush scheme".
You take the cake at BBI for saying a whole lot of nothing and changing arguments then dressing it up all nice and pretty with alot of haughty empty verbiage.
Please share for this entire board your proof of what was simplified?
that's first...
second...even if pre reads were "simplified"....SO WHAT???
The point once again is that Fewell SIMPLIFIED SOMETHING....THAT IS A FACT...that's all I've said, unless you can prove something different.
simplifying that took place....GOOD....whatever it was that allows these players to play better is what should be done.
The players have once again went to fewell and got him to simplify things and the defense has responded....that's all I care about are the results.
RE: How do you know exactly what was simplified???
Please share for this entire board your proof of what was simplified?
that's first...
second...even if pre reads were "simplified"....SO WHAT???
The point once again is that Fewell SIMPLIFIED SOMETHING....THAT IS A FACT...that's all I've said, unless you can prove something different.
I just showed you.
And for the.. I don't know.. 500th time? I never said nothing changed. I'm telling you exactly what changed. Joe says they simplified the pass rush scheme. None of these players (that I have seen) has said anything about that. Thomas and Tuck are both talking about pre-snap checks.
Antrel Rolle was asked about it yesterday.. he said "we didn't really change much of anything, we just made some small adjustments".
Meanwhile, there are about a dozen poster who can chronologically show where your argument has changed.
Just because you keep trying to say things I didn't say, doesn't make them true. Meanwhile, it is a FACT you said pages of the playbook were taken out.
someone is recording the games and doing defensive game break downs in detail, it's hard to find out what was simplified. You would have to go by what the players are saying. Simplification can come in the form of many things: Xs & Os, techniques of players in various positions, terminology to get the plays in quicker. It can be anything or everything. If the answer is not given by someone in the media, then the average fan needs to record and break down the games before and after the report of something being simplified and find it.
which is basically that hey simplifying really MEANS simplifying!!! Awesome Job Tom!
Arc and Fatman please continue to explain why simplifying does NOT equal simplification! Now, if you explain that side better and convince more people, I think you guys deserve the cigar ALOT more than Tom does!
So if you don't know....what are we debating here???
We know they simplified something....that's a FACT.
do we know what exactly or the degree of the simplification?
I don't know nor does anyone else at this point.
But there was certainly a meeting on simplifying things having to do with this defense. That must include everyone in my opinion because both Thomas and Tuck were clearly happy about it. If you want to call it an adjustment (sounds like Rolle downplaying it) Rolle may have been trying to be PC and probably sensed how his words could make Fewell look, may have worded it like that for that very reason (who knows that's speculation on my part).
But we do have enough commentary from players and coaches to let us know they Simplified some things and the communication is better and the athletes are being allowed to play and do less thinking and reading. I don't think that can be debated.
is an engineer like myself. We normally tend to think logically. Tuck said they approached PF during halftime of the Bears game and some changes were made. Those changes, it seems me, have made a difference. Logically, I don't know why those discussions weren't held immediately after the Carolina game and changes made then. In regards to David Dhiel, I watched Brewer start and play the entire game against Dallas at LG, and do the same against a very good KC defense at RG. He did as good or better than DD from what I saw, and from watching Mosely start against the 1's in pre-season, he looked better than Brewer. Logically, I don't see why people assume there is no one better. Wasn't the same agument made after Cruz was benched after his first drop against Washington in week 1 of 2011? We signed Stokely casue no one was better? The case, logically, for playing a 2nd or 3rd year guy over DD is they have a chance to improve with more playing time, which should help down the road. If they feel DD will help Pugh progress, then that makes some sense.
Joe.. are you going to pull up those quotes about simplifying the pass rush scheme or not?
You seem to have everything saved somewhere and right at your finger tips so it shouldn't take more than a second or two.
If you can show me one of these players flat out saying that the pass rush scheme was "simplified", I will bow out of this and say I was wrong about that.
You want to help your case? Start recording the games and do simply game breakdowns for the defense. Start there and document what you see. Compare that over the course of games and see what happens.
if you provide evidence based on what your thesis of your point is people will have to believe you whether like it or not. You will also be surprised by what you notice about the game as well. I did this with Spags system and our offense. You do that and you have the supporting evidence with you.
It helps when players say something was simplified too. But use that as the starting point, and if you do what I suggest then your claims will be backed by evidence.
Just remember simplification can come in many forms.
things have been simplified for a few days now. But I never once thought they changed their schemes or calls.
I coached at the high school level and wouldn't have been able to change the calls or scheme midseason. I coached the defense and the calls were kept easy and never made the kids think.
That is kind of what I was thinking was going on. I'm not trying to directly compare high school with NFL but it just seems like the players don't have to think about what they are doing now.
After an Oct. 10 loss in Chicago dropped them to 0-6,
the Giants' defensive players met with their coaches to discuss some new ideas.
Players said Sunday that the meeting was an open and frank one in which players
offered suggestions about everything from changing coverages to simplifying the pass rush.
They all seem to agree it has helped."Just getting together and getting on the same page,"
safety Antrel Rolle said. "A lot of speaking to each other as men. Players trusting coaches,
coaches trusting players.
And I think that has showed up in our performance."
I've been pretty consistent this entire time. I've never claimed that nothing changed. That would just be a ridiculous stance to take since the players flat out said they did.
All I'm contending is WHAT actually changed. As far as we know, the only thing they've said changed were the checks and pre-snap stuff. None of them said anything about the actual scheme changing (and like you said, you can't really change that mid-season).. and yet, Joe is here flat out saying they "simplified the pass rush scheme". And when I call him out on it, he goes back to the whole "you said they didn't simplify but you're admitting they simplified!"
For the hundredth time Fatty and others
JerseyJoe : 1/30/2008 10:20 am : link
First off I'd like to personally thank Fatty for actually acknowledging/admitting that numerous sources have in fact said this system is extremely complex. That in itself is finally a good step for someone so prideful.
Secondly I will yet again clarify what I meant by simplification. I never said it meant taking out ALL option routes, thats absolutely false. However they have pared down the number of excessive option plays, they have started calling plays that complement our recievers skills sets the best. I.E motioning Toomer and finding the soft spot in the zone D (Toomer has been very good at this). Using Burresses size and calling more specific plays that take advantage of his skill vs. heavy option stuff that takes away from his aggressiveness. Also calling designed quick hitting plays with 1-2 primary quick hitting reads like slants and or rollouts designed to hit crossers etc.
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).
Did i clear that up enough for you???
Joe
Mike fr Warwick : 1/30/2008 10:30 am : link
You are talking out your ass.<b>Describe an excessive option route.</b>The time a play takes to develop is in direct relation to the depth of the drop. When the ball does not come out at that step it is because people were not open not because it was designed that way. WRs do not chose from 5 passing trees on plays. Just make it up?
What is
dorgan : 1/30/2008 10:32 am : link
completely clear, is that you don't know shit about football.
Multiple passing trees?
Heh.
You talk our of your ass so much that your breath has got to be alarmingly bad.
but there aren't many ways to change or simplify that. Unless you just say go straight ahead. But that wouldn't make the defense better, it would make them predictable.
if your car doesn't start and you don't know why every it's not starting doesn't mean something isn't broken.
We can only take educated guesses based on what we see from the performance on the field,the multiple missed communications on O and D year after year, and then the players and journalists comments and quotes in the media.
There has been enough evidence over the last 8 years 9for anyone who doesn't have an agenda or blind bias) to clearly see there is an extremely high level of complexity in our systems and that it is very likely this is something that the coaching staff and ownership strongly beleive in.
"There is no guilt by association to be taken from this thread. The opinion expressed were made by individuals who only by the odds of having enough opinions on things will end up once in a blue moon with similar opinions to those that they wouldn't piss on if they were on fire"
It is obvious that the defense was too complex and something needed to be done about it. The Giants back in the last 6 games of '11 and the second half of the bears game DID SIMPLIFY to an extent that multiple players were quoted as being clearly happy with. The results defensively during the 6 game stretch as well as the last 10 quarters have been astoundingly better.
here is a post with Joe claiming plays were changed (while lecturing Dorgan in the process) Bad move on both parts:
Quote:
sad i have to explain this for your dorgy
JerseyJoe : 1/30/2008 11:30 am : link
multiple passing trees = multiple options routes for each recieving option on a given play. The number and complexity of the OVERALL reads/options far outnumber other playbooks and has been a main factor of miscommunications ,bad reads ints ,bad body language from Eli/WRs etc..
THIS facet has been pared down. I.E. instead of 10-15 overall options /reads/ adjustments the quarterback and recievers have to collectively make, it is now 5-10 and sometimes less on most of the plays.
Does it mean the playbook has changed? not necessarily. they could just be calling the less thought-intensive/'heavy read and react' type plays and focusing on calling plays that are simpler but still take full advantage of the D formation.
This is a shift to a playcalling based O (where the onus is more on the playcalling) vs. a QB based O (where the onus is more on the Qb to always make the right read)
get it now 'coach' or still too difficult to grasp?
This was 2008. Also from 2008 is my same argument - the one where I've said that things have changed. Sound familiar?
Quote:
Joe..
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/29/2008 9:37 am : link
nobody is saying the team hasn't made adjustments. There just isn't this whole new radical approach that has been implemented.
And here's Joe talking specifically about plays changing:
Quote:
The offense and routes
Mike fr Warwick : 1/29/2008 9:38 am : link
have not been simplified. Actually they have added to it both in the passing and running game. The running game now has a cutback feature that was missing earlier in the year. The passing game has more 3 step and less play action. The routes run are still based on pre snap reads. Now using the pump fake more to freeze defenders rather than the threat of the run. You see more even number routes in the pattern trees. You see the bunch being employed a little more often. Last week you saw a heavy dose of the back shoulder fade.
Mike
JerseyJoe : 1/29/2008 9:39 am : link
yes this is a very good part of it. But it is also considered simplification when what you have mentioned has replaced plays that require much more complicated and long developing reads and excessive passing trees.
Joe - it is your turn to show where I've said there is no simplification or that nothing has changed. Ball is in your court and I suspect it will remain there.
to say that pre-snap checks were eliminated. Hell, I've even agree taht things have been simplified, but you are such a stubborn fuck that you won't attribute that to me. I said it in 2008 and I've said it yesterday and today.
I've also said that simplification isn't the only reason or even the main reason for success because the plays and the schemes haven't changed.
You either are intentionally missing this point or simply don't have an answer so you ignore it.
Either way, I've answered you continuously throughout these threads and the best you can do is repaste shit and act like I haven't.
Meanwhile, I'm certain you won't be able to answer my request to produce evidence where I've said nothing has changed.
While this exchange should end the charade, I'm also really confident that it won't. You'll probably still press me about simplification again because you are either too fucking stupid or simply willingfully ignorant to listen.
It is obvious that the defense was too complex and something needed to be done about it. The Giants back in the last 6 games of '11 and the second half of the bears game DID SIMPLIFY to an extent that multiple players were quoted as being clearly happy with. The results defensively during the 6 game stretch as well as the last 10 quarters have been astoundingly better.
CAN YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
My main disagreement from the start was that you seem to think the biggest reason for the results the last 2 games were the adjustments. As if a switch flipped suddenly.
The adjustments helped I'm sure.. but to me, it was more the arrival of Beason, Hill playing well, the QB's we played and the offense not putting us in a hole. That's all.
that Beason has made on the defense, however they have also gone out of there way to speak on the meeting and the simplifying of the scheme which has improved the communication of the unit as a whole.
Both of these factors and Hill are the big reason behind this sudden improvement.
The thing that is upsetting though is that , THE SAME THING DID OCCUR IN 2011 and the were no new addition during that run.
So really the common event is the simplification of the scheme and the comments from players and coaches which backed up both.
Geeman.. we also had basically every single starter healthy for the 2011-12 run. I think that made a huge difference. We really weren't missing anyone.
And it's a great narrative and all.. but if that's true, I still don't understand what happened last year. We won the Super Bowl off 6 straight wins and then started 2012 with the complex version of the defense again, got bad results and never attempted to make a change because of... stubbornness?
your backtracking...You have fought the simplification argument for years...not just the TYPE of simplification but that we have simplified. often saying it was NOT simplification but normal adjustments that any team would make throughout the season.
still haven't seen you admit you were WRONG! Dancing around it as usual.
Let me take the first step, I have been wrong in terms of the TYPES of simplification needed. Ive tried to take an educated stab many times at what EXACTLY was the complexity of the defense (and offense) that needed to be fixed. Ive also used wrong terminology in describing what those fixes were or needed to be.
I am certainly not an expert in X's and O's but I (and quite a few others here) could still see there was a huge issue by all the clues from the numerous miscues throughout the years to the player/coaches quotes and then sudden collective rise in performance after players were clearly quoted about the coaching staff making simplifications the week before.
So in summation:
I have from the beginning (since the early days of TC's tenure) stood by that the main issue was over-complexity (whether on O or D) and that this organization seems to have an affinity for over-complicating things. Where I was wrong is trying to pinpoint exactly where that complexity was and/or how it was being addressed. I also NEVER said it is the sole reason but that it was one of the biggest factors in terms of what is holding us back from playing to our talent level (this is something you have tried to minimize also, can you ADMIT that this is a much bigger factor than you have often given it credit for?).
I also was dead wrong about Fewell's hiring. I was so excited about his hiring based on the quotes about him being a players coach and that he was very good at adjusting his defense taking advantage of his personel's strengths. Little did I know that he would put so much 'read and react' stuff in this D that the players couldn't ball anymore and were playing passive and confused.
I would like you to step up now ,stop skirting the issue and admit (even if very reluctantly) all the things you have been wrong about!
I've done that numerous times. Not surprisingly you've been too busy repasting shit to notice.
Even in 2008, I said that things were adjusted and simplified. Have no idea why you think I haven't said that other than the fact I think you are a really stupid motherfucker and don't waste an opportunity to tell you that, which apparently makes you ignore the points.
Points made in fucking 2008.
It sure takes you awhile to catch on. Frankly, I'm assuming you never will.
Newsflash...ALL Defenses are read and react! If you've ever played, you know that.
Defenses are trained to read formations and "keys" (tendencies by players) to figure out how to defend the play that's coming. If you just blindly go after the QB, you leave yourself open to draws, quick screens, for example. If you go all out and leave your DB's on an island, offenses will see that and take advantage.
There is a difference between attacking defenses, and defenses that "bend and don't break". And yes, I prefer attacking defenses...as long as they can get to the QB in time. If they can't, then it's better to play back a bit, and make the offense work it's way down the field, as the odds are pretty good that someone on offense will screw up. Proper mixing between the two (as well as being able to disguise what you're doing) helps a lot. But they all read and react. Hell, you can't go first, the offense snaps the ball..so you "react" on defense!
As far as simplification goes, things are simpler when you have players who can do their roles. If you're asking other players to "cover", that makes things complicated. For example, having Beason play a proper MLB makes it a lot easier on the D-Line and the Defensive Backfield...they don't have to worry as much about covering for that hole in the middle.
Likewise on offense, if you shorten your routes, and have someone like Hillis who can catch the ball out of the backfield, it makes it easier for the O-Line. I'd actually would like our offense to "look" more complicated (more formations, misdirection plays, counters, etc), but that all depends on the Line getting better at blocking. If we can't block, nothing works.
CRICKETS
Again and try to combine reading and comprehension with this...The scheme was SIMPLIFIED, these are the words of COACHES AND PLAYERS. I promise you I'm not makingthis up. I don't know what issue some of you have with that word "simplfied", but this in FACT took place. How much of the scheme and/or game plans have been SIMPLIFIED can be questioned, but there is NO DOUBT that the COACHES SIMPLIFIED the schemes/playbook in a way that has allowed the players to play better. It's a FACT not an OPINION.
Do you know what a scheme is? They didn't simplify or change anything about the scheme. They're still running the same 4-3 defense with the same coverages they've been running all year. The "simplification" is that they're not changing plays at the LOS based on what the offense shows.
Or when that's really not working so well for ya anymore
let's backtrack and say: 'ok well now there might be a simplification but it is only one small little itty bitty thing' or 'it's one of soooo many factors and all the OTHER factors make up 99% of the reason there is an improvement!'
LOL keep it up! You're doing great!
It's not that hard to just admit you were wrong buddy. Yes your elelphant size pride might take a hit but in the end you would have been man enough to just come clean.
GmenDynasty : 2:07 pm : link : reply
was on more than one level including the pass rush schemes but yes please carry on trying to figure out how simplifying DOESN'T really mean simplifying.
Except for the fact that none of the players said anything about "simplifying the pass rush schemes". Everything I've seen has been about checks and pre-snap adjustments. This isn't about "simplifying the pass rush schemes".
It isn't that they changed the system. It was simplified by eliminating adjustments at pre-snap. The players having to not only worry about their assignments but what defense are they going to run and what is their responsibility when the ball is snapped. I never thought they changed the defense itself. But the way you explained it is the way it was simplified.
They simplified the approach. To me, that is everything when the players only have to worry about what they need to do.
If you call a defense for 3rd and 12 and worry about running that defense and not the fact they came to the line differently than expected and try to adjust to that makes it easier to focus on your responsibility.
That's what you've had to resort to? Since day 1, I said we made changes. I even agreed that they simplified the terminology.
But MORE IMPORTANTLY, I said that was not the main reason for success, nor was it considered simplifying the scheme. You flat out said we removed pages form the playbook. You flat out said the schemes were dumbed down.
But in your million tries to repaste shit, you keep ignoring that. You started with an incorrect premise and it has actually gotten worse since then. Now, you are trying to argue that I said NO changes took place which is an outright lie.
Par for the course, but an outright, fucking lie.
Show me a post where I said nothing changed. I can actually go back into the archives where you said pages were taken out of the playbook. Show me wherever I said nothing was changed at all.
Here's one article you linked..
"I think, you know, Perry is pretty good at scheming, he really is," Justin Tuck said. "But sometimes you can have so much and it slows you down because, mentally, you're thinking about all the checks you have."
From the newsday article..
I see a lot of guys talking about checks. I see absolutely nothing about "simplifying the pass rush scheme".
You take the cake at BBI for saying a whole lot of nothing and changing arguments then dressing it up all nice and pretty with alot of haughty empty verbiage.
that's first...
second...even if pre reads were "simplified"....SO WHAT???
The point once again is that Fewell SIMPLIFIED SOMETHING....THAT IS A FACT...that's all I've said, unless you can prove something different.
The players have once again went to fewell and got him to simplify things and the defense has responded....that's all I care about are the results.
that's first...
second...even if pre reads were "simplified"....SO WHAT???
The point once again is that Fewell SIMPLIFIED SOMETHING....THAT IS A FACT...that's all I've said, unless you can prove something different.
I just showed you.
And for the.. I don't know.. 500th time? I never said nothing changed. I'm telling you exactly what changed. Joe says they simplified the pass rush scheme. None of these players (that I have seen) has said anything about that. Thomas and Tuck are both talking about pre-snap checks.
Antrel Rolle was asked about it yesterday.. he said "we didn't really change much of anything, we just made some small adjustments".
Meanwhile, there are about a dozen poster who can chronologically show where your argument has changed.
Just because you keep trying to say things I didn't say, doesn't make them true. Meanwhile, it is a FACT you said pages of the playbook were taken out.
Well, that's awfully convenient ain't it, Joseph.
Arc and Fatman please continue to explain why simplifying does NOT equal simplification! Now, if you explain that side better and convince more people, I think you guys deserve the cigar ALOT more than Tom does!
do we know what exactly or the degree of the simplification?
I don't know nor does anyone else at this point.
But there was certainly a meeting on simplifying things having to do with this defense. That must include everyone in my opinion because both Thomas and Tuck were clearly happy about it. If you want to call it an adjustment (sounds like Rolle downplaying it) Rolle may have been trying to be PC and probably sensed how his words could make Fewell look, may have worded it like that for that very reason (who knows that's speculation on my part).
But we do have enough commentary from players and coaches to let us know they Simplified some things and the communication is better and the athletes are being allowed to play and do less thinking and reading. I don't think that can be debated.
You seem to have everything saved somewhere and right at your finger tips so it shouldn't take more than a second or two.
If you can show me one of these players flat out saying that the pass rush scheme was "simplified", I will bow out of this and say I was wrong about that.
if you provide evidence based on what your thesis of your point is people will have to believe you whether like it or not. You will also be surprised by what you notice about the game as well. I did this with Spags system and our offense. You do that and you have the supporting evidence with you.
It helps when players say something was simplified too. But use that as the starting point, and if you do what I suggest then your claims will be backed by evidence.
Just remember simplification can come in many forms.
I coached at the high school level and wouldn't have been able to change the calls or scheme midseason. I coached the defense and the calls were kept easy and never made the kids think.
That is kind of what I was thinking was going on. I'm not trying to directly compare high school with NFL but it just seems like the players don't have to think about what they are doing now.
the Giants' defensive players met with their coaches to discuss some new ideas.
Players said Sunday that the meeting was an open and frank one in which players
offered suggestions about everything from changing coverages to simplifying the pass rush.
They all seem to agree it has helped."Just getting together and getting on the same page,"
safety Antrel Rolle said. "A lot of speaking to each other as men. Players trusting coaches,
coaches trusting players.
And I think that has showed up in our performance."
I've been pretty consistent this entire time. I've never claimed that nothing changed. That would just be a ridiculous stance to take since the players flat out said they did.
All I'm contending is WHAT actually changed. As far as we know, the only thing they've said changed were the checks and pre-snap stuff. None of them said anything about the actual scheme changing (and like you said, you can't really change that mid-season).. and yet, Joe is here flat out saying they "simplified the pass rush scheme". And when I call him out on it, he goes back to the whole "you said they didn't simplify but you're admitting they simplified!"
JerseyJoe : 1/30/2008 10:20 am : link
First off I'd like to personally thank Fatty for actually acknowledging/admitting that numerous sources have in fact said this system is extremely complex. That in itself is finally a good step for someone so prideful.
Secondly I will yet again clarify what I meant by simplification. I never said it meant taking out ALL option routes, thats absolutely false. However they have pared down the number of excessive option plays, they have started calling plays that complement our recievers skills sets the best. I.E motioning Toomer and finding the soft spot in the zone D (Toomer has been very good at this). Using Burresses size and calling more specific plays that take advantage of his skill vs. heavy option stuff that takes away from his aggressiveness. Also calling designed quick hitting plays with 1-2 primary quick hitting reads like slants and or rollouts designed to hit crossers etc.
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).
Did i clear that up enough for you???
Joe
Mike fr Warwick : 1/30/2008 10:30 am : link
You are talking out your ass.<b>Describe an excessive option route.</b>The time a play takes to develop is in direct relation to the depth of the drop. When the ball does not come out at that step it is because people were not open not because it was designed that way. WRs do not chose from 5 passing trees on plays. Just make it up?
What is
dorgan : 1/30/2008 10:32 am : link
completely clear, is that you don't know shit about football.
Multiple passing trees?
Heh.
You talk our of your ass so much that your breath has got to be alarmingly bad.
Link - ( New Window )
I have no idea if that means they actually changed them.
If they did, I'm wrong.
We can only take educated guesses based on what we see from the performance on the field,the multiple missed communications on O and D year after year, and then the players and journalists comments and quotes in the media.
There has been enough evidence over the last 8 years 9for anyone who doesn't have an agenda or blind bias) to clearly see there is an extremely high level of complexity in our systems and that it is very likely this is something that the coaching staff and ownership strongly beleive in.
carry on
CAN YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
JerseyJoe : 1/30/2008 11:30 am : link
multiple passing trees = multiple options routes for each recieving option on a given play. The number and complexity of the OVERALL reads/options far outnumber other playbooks and has been a main factor of miscommunications ,bad reads ints ,bad body language from Eli/WRs etc..
THIS facet has been pared down. I.E. instead of 10-15 overall options /reads/ adjustments the quarterback and recievers have to collectively make, it is now 5-10 and sometimes less on most of the plays.
Does it mean the playbook has changed? not necessarily. they could just be calling the less thought-intensive/'heavy read and react' type plays and focusing on calling plays that are simpler but still take full advantage of the D formation.
This is a shift to a playcalling based O (where the onus is more on the playcalling) vs. a QB based O (where the onus is more on the Qb to always make the right read)
get it now 'coach' or still too difficult to grasp?
This was 2008. Also from 2008 is my same argument - the one where I've said that things have changed. Sound familiar?
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/29/2008 9:37 am : link
nobody is saying the team hasn't made adjustments. There just isn't this whole new radical approach that has been implemented.
And here's Joe talking specifically about plays changing:
Mike fr Warwick : 1/29/2008 9:38 am : link
have not been simplified. Actually they have added to it both in the passing and running game. The running game now has a cutback feature that was missing earlier in the year. The passing game has more 3 step and less play action. The routes run are still based on pre snap reads. Now using the pump fake more to freeze defenders rather than the threat of the run. You see more even number routes in the pattern trees. You see the bunch being employed a little more often. Last week you saw a heavy dose of the back shoulder fade.
Mike
JerseyJoe : 1/29/2008 9:39 am : link
yes this is a very good part of it. But it is also considered simplification when what you have mentioned has replaced plays that require much more complicated and long developing reads and excessive passing trees.
Joe - it is your turn to show where I've said there is no simplification or that nothing has changed. Ball is in your court and I suspect it will remain there.
I've also said that simplification isn't the only reason or even the main reason for success because the plays and the schemes haven't changed.
You either are intentionally missing this point or simply don't have an answer so you ignore it.
Either way, I've answered you continuously throughout these threads and the best you can do is repaste shit and act like I haven't.
Meanwhile, I'm certain you won't be able to answer my request to produce evidence where I've said nothing has changed.
While this exchange should end the charade, I'm also really confident that it won't. You'll probably still press me about simplification again because you are either too fucking stupid or simply willingfully ignorant to listen.
CAN YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
My main disagreement from the start was that you seem to think the biggest reason for the results the last 2 games were the adjustments. As if a switch flipped suddenly.
The adjustments helped I'm sure.. but to me, it was more the arrival of Beason, Hill playing well, the QB's we played and the offense not putting us in a hole. That's all.
Link - ( New Window )
Both of these factors and Hill are the big reason behind this sudden improvement.
The thing that is upsetting though is that , THE SAME THING DID OCCUR IN 2011 and the were no new addition during that run.
So really the common event is the simplification of the scheme and the comments from players and coaches which backed up both.
Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
And it's a great narrative and all.. but if that's true, I still don't understand what happened last year. We won the Super Bowl off 6 straight wins and then started 2012 with the complex version of the defense again, got bad results and never attempted to make a change because of... stubbornness?
You are going to ignore my words back in 2008.
You are going to remain a fucking putz.
Great job.
Let me take the first step, I have been wrong in terms of the TYPES of simplification needed. Ive tried to take an educated stab many times at what EXACTLY was the complexity of the defense (and offense) that needed to be fixed. Ive also used wrong terminology in describing what those fixes were or needed to be.
I am certainly not an expert in X's and O's but I (and quite a few others here) could still see there was a huge issue by all the clues from the numerous miscues throughout the years to the player/coaches quotes and then sudden collective rise in performance after players were clearly quoted about the coaching staff making simplifications the week before.
So in summation:
I have from the beginning (since the early days of TC's tenure) stood by that the main issue was over-complexity (whether on O or D) and that this organization seems to have an affinity for over-complicating things. Where I was wrong is trying to pinpoint exactly where that complexity was and/or how it was being addressed. I also NEVER said it is the sole reason but that it was one of the biggest factors in terms of what is holding us back from playing to our talent level (this is something you have tried to minimize also, can you ADMIT that this is a much bigger factor than you have often given it credit for?).
I also was dead wrong about Fewell's hiring. I was so excited about his hiring based on the quotes about him being a players coach and that he was very good at adjusting his defense taking advantage of his personel's strengths. Little did I know that he would put so much 'read and react' stuff in this D that the players couldn't ball anymore and were playing passive and confused.
I would like you to step up now ,stop skirting the issue and admit (even if very reluctantly) all the things you have been wrong about!
Even in 2008, I said that things were adjusted and simplified. Have no idea why you think I haven't said that other than the fact I think you are a really stupid motherfucker and don't waste an opportunity to tell you that, which apparently makes you ignore the points.
Points made in fucking 2008.
It sure takes you awhile to catch on. Frankly, I'm assuming you never will.
Oh, and "excessive passing trees" never gets old to me. Fucking GOLD.
Defenses are trained to read formations and "keys" (tendencies by players) to figure out how to defend the play that's coming. If you just blindly go after the QB, you leave yourself open to draws, quick screens, for example. If you go all out and leave your DB's on an island, offenses will see that and take advantage.
There is a difference between attacking defenses, and defenses that "bend and don't break". And yes, I prefer attacking defenses...as long as they can get to the QB in time. If they can't, then it's better to play back a bit, and make the offense work it's way down the field, as the odds are pretty good that someone on offense will screw up. Proper mixing between the two (as well as being able to disguise what you're doing) helps a lot. But they all read and react. Hell, you can't go first, the offense snaps the ball..so you "react" on defense!
As far as simplification goes, things are simpler when you have players who can do their roles. If you're asking other players to "cover", that makes things complicated. For example, having Beason play a proper MLB makes it a lot easier on the D-Line and the Defensive Backfield...they don't have to worry as much about covering for that hole in the middle.
Likewise on offense, if you shorten your routes, and have someone like Hillis who can catch the ball out of the backfield, it makes it easier for the O-Line. I'd actually would like our offense to "look" more complicated (more formations, misdirection plays, counters, etc), but that all depends on the Line getting better at blocking. If we can't block, nothing works.
Gilbride must have loaned his chainsaw to Fewell.