for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Why not start the season with simplified Offense & Defense ?

Headhunter : 10/30/2013 7:45 am
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?
The reason is  
mrvax : 10/30/2013 8:01 am : link
the coaches have a need to be embarrassed and have their jobs on the line to take action contrary to their long held beliefs. Fans can see that the players cannot execute in real time these wild fantasies the coaches have in mind.

Maybe next year when we have the same staff back because we went 4-12, we can screw up much, much worse and begin to adjust the offense and defense after only 4 horrific losses.
A few years ago Eli went to Coughlin & Gilbride  
Headhunter : 10/30/2013 8:07 am : link
and picked the plays that they were most successful running and got rid of everything else. If you ran basic plays and become really good at them,why all the window dressing that leads to confusion and everyone not on the same page?
You really..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 8:17 am : link
shouldn't jab people with fibromyalgia.

That fucking hurts!
Lombardi  
trueblueinpw : 10/30/2013 8:17 am : link
Vince Lombardi, who was a pretty good coach, used to run the same simple play over and over until a team demonstrated an ability to stop the play. His philosophy was to beat teams physically and out work them and our last then on the field. I think that worked out OK.

I don't get the whole complicated offense and defense thing. Especially since its been an ongoing problem with these Giants. At the end of the day,you have to blame TC. Why wwouldn't he have already said to Fewell and Killdrive, "keep it simple"?

I listen  
lecky : 10/30/2013 8:23 am : link
to none of this nonsense about complicated offenses and defenses. I watch a lot of football and the Giant offense, although excellent at times, does not look any more complicated than lets say the Packers, the Saints, the Cowboys, etc. There are so many plays the Giants do not even seem capable of running such as a screen pass or a quick pass out of the backfield to a running back. So what play do the Giants run that is complicated?
The whole concept of Gilbride's "passing tree"  
Headhunter : 10/30/2013 8:25 am : link
gives me pause. In theory if you had a QB working with the same set of receivers for 4 years, yeah, the QB should be in the same page as the WR's. BUT every year guys leave and guys get hurt and ELi gets burned by throwing where he thought the WR 's body language thought he would be. To Paraphrase Ronald Reagan " Mr Gilbride cut down
that Tree"
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 8:27 am : link
during camp  
fkap : 10/30/2013 8:30 am : link
a lot of the reports said they were trying all kinds of funky stuff. a lot of concern was raised. while it's the time to try a variety of stuff, the limitations on practice time means you're not cementing the bread and butter plays (of course, with limited turnover on O personnel, and the return of an O system that we've used for years, the bread and butter should be ingrained already). Whether that was the cause, the O came out sloppy at the beginning of the season when Gilbride dialed up a heavy dose of complex high test performance. Also have to factor in that it seems as though no consideration was given to the OL, with it's rookie RT, a Snee coming off surgery with almost no practice, and an injured Baas. They were all just thrown into the fire and hoped they held up.

I don't know if simplification is the right word, but maybe an approach of mixing in easier plays early in the season, then adding in the complex stuff when you demonstrate you can handle it?
RE: The whole concept of Gilbride's  
lecky : 10/30/2013 8:33 am : link
In comment 11310084 Headhunter said:
Quote:
gives me pause. In theory if you had a QB working with the same set of receivers for 4 years, yeah, the QB should be in the same page as the WR's. BUT every year guys leave and guys get hurt and ELi gets burned by throwing where he thought the WR 's body language thought he would be. To Paraphrase Ronald Reagan " Mr Gilbride cut down
that Tree"


Head

Everyone has the same issues as we have as far as personnel. Problem is when one player makes a mistake it is an incomplete pass. No big deal. When they both make a mistake it is a pick. I am very sure, and of course there is no way me or anyone on here, that we are not the most complicated offense out there.
I think with the lack of practice  
Headhunter : 10/30/2013 8:34 am : link
you start off with basics and build off that, rather that throwing the kitchen sink at them in OTA's and have to scale back
there is a very simple answer to this  
robbieballs2003 : 10/30/2013 8:36 am : link
Its a lot easier to hit the breaks than the gas. There is a lack of practice time in the NFL. When would you propose we start getting complicated? You have time with the mini camps, OTAs and training camp to work on installing your schemes. During the season it is more about using what is in your arsenal to attack a team than it is about complicating your scheme. Yes, adjustments are made but they are made off of what you already have installed. There simply is just a lack of time to keep introducing new concepts during a game week while still trying to understand what the other team likes to do. This doesn't mean that teams don't install new stuff from time to time but it is very limited. You can do more of this during your bye week.

Look no further than how TC's team's have started in the past. We have always come out strong. Its the late season collapses that have been our achilles heel. This year is the exception not the rule.
I'm not sure we're looking at this the right way...  
Jon from PA : 10/30/2013 8:57 am : link
Historically, the Gmen start off playing pretty good ball, but fall off in November which would suggest the "complicated" schemes are not this issue. I would think that alone would be reason enough not to change the a more simplified scheme earlier on.

Where I think we get into trouble is when injuries start piling up and less experienced guys have to fill in who may not have as good of an understanding of the playbook. Hence the need for the change.
Is there anyway to know if the Giants  
Headhunter : 10/30/2013 9:01 am : link
would not of had the same starts if they ran a basic offense and simplified defense? Injuries certainly are are a reason for the 2 NDA's halves if the seasons we've had, but plugging in new players to a simplified offense and defense might make the injuries less of a factor because there would be less thinking by the replacements
I think Eli should just draw the play on his hands in the huddle.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 9:09 am : link
Go back to the playground stuff.. I'm not sure why we're running all this complex shit that is confusing everyone. Tell one guy to go long, one guy to run an out and one guy to run a slant and tell everyone else to block.
Having a Beason, Hillis(to receive out of the backfield  
Big Blue '56 : 10/30/2013 9:15 am : link
and help reduce down and distance for Eli) and a healthy Wilson/Brown from the beginning might have helped the most

I think that if you rewatch the Carolina game, we had far too  
giantsfour : 10/30/2013 9:24 am : link
many plays where the OL whiffed on their blocks. Even in the simplest of offenses, plays are not going to work when that happens. In the first six games, defenses were able to attack our OL and win the battles easily - in the last two games, those defenses could not. On defense, in the last two games, we faced QBs that were simply not NFL ready. The idea that simplification allowed us to win the last two games is fool's gold, imo.
how complex is it really?  
UConn4523 : 10/30/2013 9:39 am : link
does anyone truly know or is it another BBI buzzword?

I'm starting to think its the later. Complex route running? Really? How difficult can a route possibly be?

These aren't guys that just got plopped into football this year, they have been around it the majority of their lives.

I'm not doubting that things may be harder to pick up with different packages, or having to audible, etc, but I think its somewhat of myth here to be honest.
Since each receiver has multiple rout options  
Headhunter : 10/30/2013 9:52 am : link
on each play depending on the defense, I'd say the chances for a misread are pretty good as we've seen time and time again
bc of who we played  
haper : 10/30/2013 9:52 am : link
The simplified schemas might work against the Vikings and Eagles both w backup QBs, but we'll have to see how successful it is against above average teams.

It could be the staff felt the schemas put in place at the beginning of the year is what they thought was needed to get the team into the playoffs. For a number of reasons that proved to be a bad decision.
On offense  
mrvax : 10/30/2013 9:58 am : link
Players and former players made comments to the effect that the (Gilbride) offense was much harder to learn than any other they had been in; huge number of options.

It probably takes a lot more memorization for a player to be able to do his job right with this offense. Those players also spoke about a lot of decision making just prior to the snap.

If true, one can easily understand why receivers who are not gifted mentally or rather new to the team often blow the route they are supposed to run.

======================================================
This year's recent offensive adjustments hasn't been intentionally to simplify things but to get the ball out quicker and run shorter routes.

RE: how complex is it really?  
mac attack : 10/30/2013 9:58 am : link
In comment 11310190 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
does anyone truly know or is it another BBI buzzword?

I'm starting to think its the later. Complex route running? Really? How difficult can a route possibly be?

These aren't guys that just got plopped into football this year, they have been around it the majority of their lives.

I'm not doubting that things may be harder to pick up with different packages, or having to audible, etc, but I think its somewhat of myth here to be honest.


Uconn,

The routes are "complex" because Eli and the WR have to both see the same thing in the D to decide which way the route will go.

For instance, if a defender is playing 5 yards off the LOS and showing man coverage, the route should be a 10 yard hook route. If the man is playing bump coverage, the route should be a 10 yard in-route.

However, if both Eli and the WR are not seeing things the exact same way, the ball will be thrown one way and the WR will run another, and we end up looking like we're on the wrong page or with an INT.

I'm with everyone here and just have set routes instead of "options" for the WRs to run. Get back to nut-and-bolt football.
Read Nate Jackson's book  
nomad1986 : 10/30/2013 10:00 am : link
It's a great insight to a lot of things behind the scenes in the NFL coaches in particular.
mac attack  
UConn4523 : 10/30/2013 10:01 am : link
I get that, but many make it seem like way more than it is. Many teams have offenses that work in a similar capacity. I just think people use this as the excuse, when in reality, we may just have 1 too many bad players on either side of the ball.

I tend to think its a mix, but it's really hard for me to blame the scheme when we won 2 SB's with it, with teams far more talented (and younger on the o-line).
whatever  
whobetta : 10/30/2013 10:06 am : link
for such a well "coached" team, we beat ourselves far far far too often.

I would like to see the offense function under a different philosophy...

the "simplification" buzzwords have been used by players and coaches alike in the past, and I think its valid that we as fans can ask, what is the deal with why it continues to be so difficult for everyone to be on the same page year in and year out and that when certain things are done it "CLICKS"

try to figure out how to make it CLICK all the time instead of changing it back to times where it didn't.
Complexity is only a small part of the problem  
Patrick77 : 10/30/2013 10:09 am : link
Execution is the biggest. Any, even an awful strategy can work in football if your team executes to 100% every play. The Giants biggest issue is execution. The offensive line has been atrocious, the tight ends and backs have been bad and can't block or catch, Nicks has not been himself, and Randle doesn't see what Eli sees.

Another reason they wouldn't "simplify" the playbooks to start the year is obvious. What would happen if they came right out of the gate and had the most easily recognizeable and defeatable defense & offense out there? Then what, have a training camp during the bye week?

It may be true that Fewell and Gilbride try to run too complex of schemes, but they have won with these schemes, and the alternative, what we are seeing now may be good (simple), but we haven't face any real competition the last two weeks.
Uconn  
mac attack : 10/30/2013 10:09 am : link
I agree that most teams probably run similar stuff as we do. I just think that we are out-thinking ourselves here on offense. We have skilled players in Cruz, Nicks, Randle and even Jernigan to a degree. Let these guys just play and not think. If I know going to the line I am faster than the DB and I am running a go-route, why can't I just go burn the guy instead of reading how he is playing me and adjusting? If I know the DB is soft across the middle, let me keep running that, rather than try to take what he is "giving me". I don't think the system is dumb or bad, but I just don't think its necessary when it's lead to so many turnovers this season.
It all lies  
AnishPatel : 10/30/2013 10:39 am : link
in the sight adjustments that need to be made for the WRs. The concept of the QB and WR being on the same page twice, pre snap read & post snap read, is really the foundation of our system.

That allows for zero margin for error by the WR. If the WR makes an error it falls in Eli's stat column.

We have made adjustments but this is not our offense. If they want to change systems in the off season, I'd be very happy. I am tired of seeing the ball go one way and WR go another.
I've said....  
Tom [Giants fan] : 10/30/2013 10:43 am : link
that this same thing happened during the last Super Bowl season I believe it was. The defense looked confused especially the defensive backs. The defense was simplified and played a lot better after that.

I was wondering why they don't just have a simplified system from day one and keep it that way adding a wrinkle here or there if needed.
Tom,  
AnishPatel : 10/30/2013 10:59 am : link
I wondered that as well. Then in the off season we add everything back and shit happens. We then need to simplify things yet again.
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 11:08 am : link
Because now that we've eliminated pre-snap checks, we're going to be in trouble against better QB's who can figure out what we're running since we're sticking with the original call and not deviating. It works nicely against guys like Freeman and Barkley and it'll probably work against Pryor.. but a guy like Rodgers is going to be able to figure out what we're doing and exploit the shit out of it if we can't get back to having some checks.

You kind of need some complexity in this league because you'll get feasted on if you don't.

Offensively, I think we could do without all the option routes but you need to be able to counter what teams want to do to you. When you get too simple, you pigeonhole yourself and will find yourself getting painted into a corner.
You can substitute  
AnishPatel : 10/30/2013 11:13 am : link
complexity to some extent with more tendency breakers. If complexity is causing miscommunications than it's an issue. On offense, it's a pain in the fucking ass. If we all took a shot for everytime we heard the term miscommunication we'd be drunk by the end of the 1st Q.

I am tired of that shit on offense. I want a change. I do like the Gilbride adjustments. I do like the Fewell adjustments. Keep the offense dink and dunk, this way no one fucks up their sight adjustments. I think it makes things easier when you can dump it off to a RB or FB and have them make a play.

I am curious to see what tendency breakers we implement after the bye week.
that is a myth about Vince Lombardi  
HomerJones45 : 10/30/2013 11:28 am : link
that the Packers had a "few simple plays." Lombardi worked with the available materials. When he had Hornung and Taylor and an o-line of young studs, they were a running team with a few simple plays. When those guys were gone and the o-line was older, they became a down the field passing team. Lombardi's last year with the Packers, he was working in motion, reverses and other plays to take advantage of Travis Williams' speed. When he went to the Redskins, they were a controlled short passing team.

What Lombardi's teams were was drilled so they executed as second nature. People forget that in his first life, Lombardi was a teacher.

I don't know why it is so difficult to comprehend that when you start off with little training camp, various o-line combinations (we have started the same o-line combo two games in a row once this season- last week), various running backs (the only rb we have who has been with the team since training camp is Cox), two new te's and feeding more responsibilities to young receivers, nothing about a modern NFL offense is going to be "simple."

On the defensive side of the ball, you can sure "simplify" things when you aren't trying to cover 3 or 4 holes in the defense with smoke and mirrors. Beason and Hill have covered over a couple of those holes so there isn't as much need for the smoke and mirrors.
arc.....  
Tom [Giants fan] : 10/30/2013 11:29 am : link
I know he had hamstring issues but it was working against Vick as well.
RE: arc.....  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 11:40 am : link
In comment 11310462 Tom [Giants fan] said:
Quote:
I know he had hamstring issues but it was working against Vick as well.


Vick took less than 20 total snaps and only attempted 9 passes. He's also the complete opposite of a cerebral QB who can read defenses. He has always relied on his athletic ability to succeed and when he has a bad wheel and can't run, he's an absolutely useless player. I really wouldn't hang my hat on what we did to him Sunday at all.

Again, I like a lot of the things I've seen from the defense this year but I've been saying that since before the adjustments as well.
I hope people..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 12:16 pm : link
aren't really buying into the concept that things are simplified as the year goes on and we start out really complex.

While that would be a pseudo-explanation for this year's start, how would that concept apply to most other years where we start 6-2?

I think Headhunter started this tread in jest and a lot of people are assuming we have outrageous complexity that needs to be made simple.

Like I've said too many times on this topic - it makes no sense that we would simplify things, that he simplification would result in winning, and then we would intentionally make everything more complex.

Makes no sense at all - because it isn't true.
Homer  
Bill2 : 10/30/2013 12:25 pm : link
Funny you mention the Packers

I was thinking about introducing an anecdote from his dominant "simple" plays "great execution" teams.

Back then players ( you remember this from Instant Replay) often played with in game concussions and teams had little depth behind the starters

Separate story: Its the Ice Bowl

Its the Fourth Quarter. Its the modern high complexity glamour super team called the Dallas Cowboys vs the old NFL aging veterans of Green Bay

Its -13 degrees.

Green Bay has to go down the field

The only have seven kinds of plays. But the Ol frozen and frostbite and brain fogged from the head slaps of the Dallas front line....knows the plays so deeply its just muscle memory by now

Dallas knew what was coming. The whole stadium knows the plays. The TV audience knows the plays

It does not matter. Green Bay drives the field and punches it in

Unfortunately, that story of executional excellence despite simplicity was in an NFl that no longer exists.

Green Bay was loaded with players who were on one team all their lives and was a collection of stars beyond stars. I forget how many were HOF players...and how many were the top players at their positions at the time

That was from a time way before "competitive balance" rules
Thats a pretty silly argument  
Blue Baller : 10/30/2013 12:25 pm : link
First of all, just because something is illogical or doesn't make sense doesn't make it untrue.

People and organizations act illogically all the time

Secondly you are countering the argument that PF is a bad DC with "that can't be true, that would make him a bad DC"

.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 12:37 pm : link
You seem more interested in arguing about peoples arguments rather than actually countering any of the points being made.
FMIC,  
AnishPatel : 10/30/2013 12:40 pm : link
I always said we start out 6-2, our offense is playing well. Our defense is staying in there. Usually by then 8 games in more tape is available on both sides of the ball. Injuries start occurring and that's when we play a very hard stretch. Without tendency breakers I notice it's the same shit. Our offense tends to struggle and our defense gets owned.

We saw this last season where the offense started to slow down unusually so for them. Pre season this offense was a shit show, but we passed it off as pre season. Though I was worried because they looked very off. That followed us to our current situation where we had to simplify things now offensively.

Defensively, it's been reported as well. I know I posted things in 2011 after the redskins game and before the Jets xmas game.

I think our issue has been when the schemes, on both sides, have issues where we constantly have miscommunications which hurt us big time. On offense, it's ball go one way WR goes another. On defense, it's WR goes on a go route and he is wide open. Cb and S look at each other like, WTF, that's your guy. Fuck that, no, that was your guy. And everyone looks like shit staring at each other like what just happened.

That's when here from day 1. That bad pass by Brady to Welker in the SB was a result of 1/2 of the field got a call and the other didn't get it. This was in the SB!! Miscommunications has been the theme of both systems when you get right down to it.
Blue Baller...  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 12:40 pm : link
it isn't a silly argument when taken in context.

To believe this idea of simplification, people have to buy into the idea that we have hugely complex schemes that operated great for part of season's, then needed to be "simplified" to start winning again after a losing streak.

Then after we win, we have to believe the coaches said, "Ah, fuck what was working. Let's make things complex again", and the cycle continued over and over again.

That's why the argument is made by several people that this isn't an issue about complexity or simplicity - it is a matter of making adjustments. Adjustments that have both complex elements to them as well as more basic ones. A football season is so fluid that adjustments occur constantly - within games and within weeks.

The idea that we make things complex, and then dumb then down just to win and decide that we need to make things complex again to lose is completely laughable. And unsupportable.
Gene(HJ45)  
Big Blue '56 : 10/30/2013 1:07 pm : link
a perfect recounting of how it was..
Wait, the premise of this thread was serious?  
vibe4giants : 10/30/2013 1:11 pm : link
I cannot tell anymore.
It was seriouson my part  
Headhunter : 10/30/2013 1:18 pm : link
Opponent blames Gilbride not Eli for Giants' turnovers....

Emlen'sGremlins : 6/23/2011 2:15 pm
....according to the Sporting News 2011 Pro Football Preview.

View From The Other Sideline
The Book On...Eli Manning

"I really think Eli's not going to have the turnover-prone year that he had last year. I don't think he's going down; I think he's still trending upwards. My opinion is it falls on (offensive coordinator Kevin) Gilbride. I really think his offense, with the players they have, neeeds to be - I hate to say this - dumbed down. It's too complicated, especially with receivers and the number of young guys they have there. They're required to do a lot more than most teams as far as options on routes. ...

"They've got a very, very complicated passing offense and, couple that with the turnovers, and it was kind of a little bit of a disaster there. The turnovers really killed them. The receivers not really being where they should be a lot of times caused a lot of turnovers. ...


From 2011

Former Giants linebacker Antonio Pierce called out the team’s defensive coordinator and players for their inability to stop opposing offenses.
“They have to find those one or two defensive calls that work for you and simplify the play calling, and that starts with Perry Fewell,” Pierce said. “Sometimes coaches put too much in there and there’s too much on the plate and obviously when you have young linebackers in the lineup and you’ve got guys in and out, you’re going to have mistakes.”
This just about suggests the coaching staff is incompetent, then.  
vibe4giants : 10/30/2013 1:25 pm : link
And isn't able to see and grasp what just a bunch of dudes on a message board can.

In which case, that utter incompetence would be the answer to the question. Or they're just really, really stubborn. Which, frankly, would also qualify as incompetence.

But I find it hard to believe.
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 1:30 pm : link
Yeah but like.. just because something is illogical or doesn't make sense doesn't make it untrue.

Or something.
I don't buy this broadbrush simplification argument  
PatersonPlank : 10/30/2013 1:31 pm : link
I do buy modifying schemes as the season goes on to leverage what are players are better at doing.
I too stated this during the 2012 season  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 1:32 pm : link
and was one of the main reasons I wanted Fewell gone.
Now he has done it again and has simplified this defense and allwed these guys to play with more freedom (there own words).
Also this actually goes back to the Bear game.
ARC tries to discredit what occurred because of the last 2 QBs we played, but this all began at the half of the Bear game. They simplified things then and the Bears went from going up and down the field...To 3 points in the second half....how much more proof do you need?
Yeah, how much more proof do you need then one game?  
vibe4giants : 10/30/2013 1:36 pm : link
Completely removed from any other context?

Lock this thread now. It's ovah.
I work with consultants  
Blue Baller : 10/30/2013 1:36 pm : link
to them there is nothing that doesn't need to be changed.
Put them in from of the Mona Lisa and they will tell you how to paint it better.

I think coordinators are similar. If they they aren't adding all sorts of wrinkles to the game plan they feel like they are not doing their job.


I feel like PF has a tendency to get too clever for his own good and needs to be reigned from time to time. Or do a better job of getting the players ready to run his system.

There has been way too much talk of miscommunications and not being on the same page during his tenure for me to ignore and not think that he either can't teach his players or he has a tendency to out kick his coverage with regards to the complexity of the system he like to run.

Is that a nonsensical and unsupportable opinion?

the quotes that keep coming out from players  
dvb : 10/30/2013 1:36 pm : link
like "They've got a very, very complicated passing offense... It's too complicated..." seem to make it pretty clear the Giants have one of, if not the most complicated offense in the league. We all see it with our own eyes, receivers going one way, ball going another. I don't want to hear it happens the same on other teams. Eli is on record pace for INTs!

What is so crazy about making it less frucking complicated?
If it's not true....then  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 1:37 pm : link
why have several players and coaches on record using the word "things were simplified" themselves???
Why is that so hard for people to believe?
This team has had communication issues since Fewell's arrival...that in itself lends itself to it was probably overly complex and players have gone to the coaches (this is on record) and things have been simplified and have allowed the defense to play better (see 2011 SB run).
Why are his schemes so complex?...I have no idea but it is clear that when things are simplified the defense plays better....THAT'S A FACT.
Vibe - you find it hard to believe the coaching staff is stubborn?  
Blue Baller : 10/30/2013 1:39 pm : link

Arc - come at me bro
When they play against bad teams with no QB  
vibe4giants : 10/30/2013 1:44 pm : link
they play better.

That's a fact.

The rest is your speculation based on player quotes. Not always the most reliable sources.

If it is so easy to see...  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 1:44 pm : link
then it should also be easy to explain when they flip the switch back to complexity. Do they do it in the off-season? If so, then why would they start 6-2, or did hey just decide to do it this year, go to 0-6 and say "Aw, Fuck. What did we do?"

For some reason, people have correlated wins with simplicity and losses with complexity. Seems to be on the same plane as those who claim we are flat in every loss.

This whole argument probably goes back to the ridiculous notion that fans think we should go 16-0 every year unless somehow the team (players and/or coaches) fuck it up. That the opponent is never better and we should win each game unless we do something idiotic. Like in this case, make things too complex. Simplify and it is an easy win. Just look at the last two games! It HAS to be simplification!
Like I said, if they're being stubborn in the face of losing  
vibe4giants : 10/30/2013 1:47 pm : link
that would make them horrible at their jobs.

And if one believes that, just call for their heads rather than trying to analyze why incompetents (the essential premise here) do their jobs the way they do.
FMiC  
LG in NYC : 10/30/2013 1:51 pm : link
Commenting on only your most recent post and not this thread as a whole... there are a bunch of people here (me included) who would complain quite loudly after a Win about we saw as flaws in the offense or defense and yet were shouted down with cries of "We won! Why would you complain?!"

So for many it is not as simple as wins and losses but rather what we see (with our amateur eyes, mind you) as long running issues on both sides of the ball.
RE: If it's not true....then  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 1:57 pm : link
In comment 11310728 Geeman said:
Quote:
why have several players and coaches on record using the word "things were simplified" themselves???
Why is that so hard for people to believe?
This team has had communication issues since Fewell's arrival...that in itself lends itself to it was probably overly complex and players have gone to the coaches (this is on record) and things have been simplified and have allowed the defense to play better (see 2011 SB run).
Why are his schemes so complex?...I have no idea but it is clear that when things are simplified the defense plays better....THAT'S A FACT.


Again.. it's not about the fucking scheme. The scheme didn't change. Why can't people figure this out?

We are running the SAME defense we have been running all year. The "simplifying" they did was getting rid of pre-snap checks (or.. defensive audibles). They're making one call in the huddle and running that play. All of the plays they are running were all in the playbook and within the scheme to begin with. Fewell never changed the scheme. He never simplified it.

If Gilbride decided to stop Eli from making pre-snap reads/adjustments and just had them run whichever play was called in the huddle regardless of the coverage they see, would you say they "simplified the offense" or changed the system?
If this is directed at me - I never said this  
Blue Baller : 10/30/2013 1:58 pm : link
"For some reason, people have correlated wins with simplicity and losses with complexity. Seems to be on the same plane as those who claim we are flat in every loss."

Football is a complicated game and many factors go into the performance we see any given Sunday. I'm just discussing one aspect here.


Arc - do you want to talk to Vibe about TC's stubbornness with regards to playing Diehl or does that violate the circle jerk code of ethics?

Whoa  
Headhunter : 10/30/2013 1:59 pm : link
What this fan's expectations for the season have 0 to do with the complexity or lack there of of their offensive be and defensive schemes . To turn this around to fit your argument by making those of us who feel that the comments that other players and members of the Giants into wins and loses and if simple means more wins is nonsense
Vibe, I think the coaching staff is just stubborn  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 1:59 pm : link
They all have strong beliefs in what they do, which isn't always a bad thing.
It starts with Coughlin and how he was stubborn to a fault about how he runs things, until he finally mellowed out and he became more successful and relateable. That's just one example. He's also loyal to a fault and you can use Deihl as an example there. KG and PF are his subordinates, so it would make sense that they too have that trait.
These guys are all detail oriented and enjoy the complications that come with there schemes, however keeping all players on the same page (factor in FA, injuries and young players, and less time due to the CBA) all of that impacts teams that install complicated schemes and the Giants obviously have one of the more complicated.
It's not the sole reason for the bad start this season, but there's no denying it's a part of the issues surrounding all the turnovers on offense and communication issues on defense.
"Take a handful of plays and run them to  
PeterS : 10/30/2013 2:02 pm : link
perfection." Vice Lombardi. Also, "Before it was the Packer sweep it was the Giant sweep." Frank Gifford.
RE: If this is directed at me - I never said this  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:04 pm : link
In comment 11310778 Blue Baller said:
Quote:
Arc - do you want to talk to Vibe about TC's stubbornness with regards to playing Diehl or does that violate the circle jerk code of ethics?


There's no stubbornness. David Diehl sucks but the reality of the unfortunate situation is that we have zero better alternatives right now.

So.. there's nothing to talk about.
Yes this topic has been addressed in the previous threads  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:12 pm : link
It's called stubborness and/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.

There are plenty of articles,quotes and etc. talking about this in the thread linked below.

Turnaround on D - ( New Window )
How about last year - anything to discuss from then?  
Blue Baller : 10/30/2013 2:13 pm : link
I can probably find volumes just like this complain about TCs stubbornness WRT playing DD

That's fine...
arcarsenal : 3/14/2013 4:18 pm : link
But I pretty strongly believe that this is an instance where the front office isn't right.

I saw Dave Diehl get beaten like an old drum far too many times last year (and in years prior) for me to believe there's any reason why he should be getting playing time on a regular basis. He's simply not a good offensive lineman anymore and was never much better than solid to begin with.

It's not hard for me to believe there's a loyalty factor here that's clouding the decision making process. It does happen, unfortunately.
Link - ( New Window )
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:13 pm : link
Copy & paste
Copy & paste
Copy & paste
Copy & paste
Copy & paste

Who's stubborn again? That's only the 10th or so time you've posted the same fucking thing.
Some quotes/articles etc.  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:15 pm : link
Why does the Giants organization love read and react elements in their system so much?

Over the years we've seen this philosophy stifle so many talented teams . It's sad what it has done to teams that could have been so much more


Heck Remember Rod Rust?
The Giants org has always had a hard on for read and react crap......

You would have thought they would have learned by now finally....
Some LT quotes after the Sheridan year (ESPN.com)

Before the Giants opened Door No. 2 and selected South Florida's Jason Pierre-Paul with the 15th overall pick, Taylor was back to blitzing a Giants defense that surrendered 40-plus points three times in the final four games of '09.

The very unit that had defined LT's two championship teams and had crushed Tom Brady's 19-0 dream had been reduced to a practical joke under Bill Sheridan, the ousted defensive coordinator who appeared to embrace a Charmin-soft approach.

"You can't play read and react and win in this league," Taylor said. "Rod Rust came in with that read and react [in 1992], and I've never in my life seen so many points scored on us.

"The Giants need to get back to attacking on defense. Don't worry about what the offense is going to do and react to that. Attack them and make them worry about what you're going to do."

More info on Rust and Fewell regarding read and react (readandreact.net)

It is unclear why ANYONE would wish to fill those shoes and, from the start, the 1991/92 New York Giants appeared headed for utter disaster. Rowdy Roddy Rust preached the Read-and-React Defense, which turned out to be a complete abyss. It thickly stifled superstars like Lawrence Taylor, Pepper Johnson, Carl Banks, and their beguiled, wandering teammates — forcing a naturally aggressive, Super Bowl-caliber defense to sit back on its heels and wait for the offense to make a move.

In 1992, the team went 6-10. Handley and Rust were fired.


Read and React but dont overreact (Daily News.com)
BY RALPH VACCHIANO
There was a players revolt 18 years ago when Ray Handley and Rod Rust tried to turn a once-aggressive Giants defense into a passive read-and-react team. A similar approach didn’t work so well in the final years of Tim Lewis’ reign either.

Perry Fewell, though, seems ready to give it a try again.

It’s not all of what his varied and seemingly complex defensive approach is about, but there’s no doubt that Fewell wants the Giants’ secondary to employ a “Read and React” approach to coverage during this season which is now just one week away. I wrote a detailed story on the Giants’ new defensive scheme in today’s Daily News.

What I found was that, unlike the ’92, the current players like it. And they think it can be a surprisingly aggressive approach, too.

(Uh what else do you expect the players to say Ralph? Are they going to publicly bash their new DC?) "Perry Fewell's defense is made to bend, but don't break," cornerback Terrell Thomas said. “We’re going to give up underneath throws. That wasn't what the Giants' defense was known for the last couple of years. And I think that's going to be a hard adjustment for the fans and media to see. But I think the overall objective is to create more turnovers."


Now we have BOTH an overly complex read and react offense AND defense. Yikes. WIll this organization ever learn?

THis is not chess this is football. It's an agressive game! take away too much of that agression form your players and bad things happen.

.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:15 pm : link
Again.. Diehl is awful. Right now, there's no one to replace him with.

Last year, I wanted Locklear to play instead because he was better. Then Locklear got hurt and we had no other choice.
I get so confused here sometimes  
SwirlingEddie : 10/30/2013 2:17 pm : link
Are we supposed to be mad at Gilbride because he keeps calling the same predictable plays or because he refuses to run the same plays over and over?
Did that..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 2:20 pm : link
stubborn motherfucker JerseyJoe just repost the same old quotes as his way of arguing?

Jesus Christ you can't make a better character up.
Who said they Changed the scheme???  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 2:26 pm : link
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.
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:30 pm : link
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  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:31 pm : link
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.
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:33 pm : link
And then there's this..

Quote:
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".
Arc, I think you stated it best....  
Tom [Giants fan] : 10/30/2013 2:37 pm : link
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.
Has your argument really..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 2:37 pm : link
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.
realllllly arc?  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:38 pm : link
so when we find you the quote for that one too, you gonna still say the sky is yellow with little itty bitty polka dots?
And no matter how you say it.....  
Tom [Giants fan] : 10/30/2013 2:38 pm : link
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.
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:43 pm : link
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".
Fats, blaaaah blaaah blaaaah blah are you  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:43 pm : link
a politician or lawyer in real life?

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.
arc I'd pull it up  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:44 pm : link
for ya but I'd rather not copy/paste again lol
How do you know exactly what was simplified???  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 2:45 pm : link
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.
If taking out "pre-snap reads" is the  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 2:48 pm : link
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???  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:48 pm : link
In comment 11310912 Geeman said:
Quote:
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".
I'm pretty fucking sure...  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 2:49 pm : link
my argument has stayed constant this entire time.

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.
RE: arc I'd pull it up  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:50 pm : link
In comment 11310910 GmenDynasty said:
Quote:
for ya but I'd rather not copy/paste again lol


Well, that's awfully convenient ain't it, Joseph.
Unless  
AnishPatel : 10/30/2013 2:51 pm : link
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.
Tom said it best!!!  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:56 pm : link
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???  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 2:57 pm : link
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.
I believe FMiC  
Mike L. : 10/30/2013 3:00 pm : link
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.
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 3:00 pm : link
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.
GD,  
AnishPatel : 10/30/2013 3:01 pm : link
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.
I have been making the case that.......  
Tom [Giants fan] : 10/30/2013 3:01 pm : link
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.
Ok Arc but you still didn't answer the question  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 3:10 pm : link
And I know it's going to be tough for ya but if I provide the quote will you finally admit that simplification MEANS simplification?
Here you go.......  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 3:11 pm : link
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."
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 3:11 pm : link
Tom, I don't disagree with any of that.

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!"
.  
YAJ2112 : 10/30/2013 3:11 pm : link
Quote:
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.

Link - ( New Window )
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 3:13 pm : link
Ok, so they offered suggestions.

I have no idea if that means they actually changed them.

If they did, I'm wrong.
I didn't see the pass rushing scheme thing......  
Tom [Giants fan] : 10/30/2013 3:15 pm : link
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.
And Anish is right  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 3:21 pm : link
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.
**Disclaimer**  
Headhunter : 10/30/2013 3:25 pm : link
"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"


carry on


To keep this simple for ARC,FATMAN and the like  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 3:28 pm : link
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?
From the archives...  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 3:32 pm : link
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.
answer my question I asked first at 3:28  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 3:39 pm : link
And I'll answer yours
I've answered that numerous times..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 3:46 pm : link
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.
Man, you guys can the archive searches to work??  
vibe4giants : 10/30/2013 3:50 pm : link
That's impressive.
RE: To keep this simple for ARC,FATMAN and the like  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 3:51 pm : link
In comment 11311008 GmenDynasty said:
Quote:
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.
vibe  
Blue Baller : 10/30/2013 3:53 pm : link
just use google instead of the built in search function

and on that note  
Blue Baller : 10/30/2013 4:09 pm : link
a google search exposes that BBI's alter ego is some website called forgeriver.com
Link - ( New Window )
BB, that's a thought.  
vibe4giants : 10/30/2013 4:21 pm : link
I'll try that some time. Thanks.
Players and coaches have acknowledged the impact  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 4:37 pm : link
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.
Again with the terminology...  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 4:46 pm : link
it isn't the SCHEME that has changed. It is the reads.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 4:49 pm : link
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?
Fatman I fully acknowledge  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 4:57 pm : link
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.
In other words...  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 5:01 pm : link
you are going to ignore my request to show where I said no adjustments were made.

You are going to ignore my words back in 2008.

You are going to remain a fucking putz.

Great job.
OK right  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 5:25 pm : link
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!
Joe..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 9:51 pm : link
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.
Hahaha, I'm not sure when it was  
shepherdsam : 10/30/2013 10:11 pm : link
that he switched this argument to the defensive side of the ball but I like it.


Oh, and "excessive passing trees" never gets old to me. Fucking GOLD.
Can we stop with the read and react complaints?  
JohnF : 10/31/2013 12:50 am : link
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.

I forgot  
dorgan : 10/31/2013 5:26 am : link
about the multiple passing trees. Good find, Fatman.

Gilbride must have loaned his chainsaw to Fewell.

Back to the Corner