More than once I have read about how the new offense uses a different language for the plays they run even if the plays that were in the old system. I read one article somewhere where Eli was explaining how they have adjust to learning the names of the plays because even if they are the same plays they used to run they are now called something entirely different.
Wouldn't it have made more sense for McAdoo to have adapted his plays to the language the Giants were already using wherever possible?
Maybe I am missing something but it seems like that would lesson the learning curve and speed up the progress.
Is there any big benefits of changing it all even all the language when installing a new offense, or was this simply just McAdoo sticking with what he was most comfortable moving forward and I guess that is not necessarily a bad thing either.
There is probably a logical, rational explanation for this.
The language is probably tied to the system and not readily convertible.
But...if possible... like you say, doesn't it make more sense for the coaches to adjust than the players?
Yeah that makes sense. I guess I just thought if Coughlin and he would have went over it when first hired TC could have said OK that screen play we call x and not y lets leave that alone. But it makes sense that McAdoo has to be the most at ease with it all.
There is probably a logical, rational explanation for this.
The language is probably tied to the system and not readily convertible.
But...if possible... like you say, doesn't it make more sense for the coaches to adjust than the players?
Yeah obviously there would need to be changes, but is seems like there could have been some adapting at least to some extent, but that's why I asked to see others take on it.
The point about the old offense being "known" is probably at least somewhat valid.
"It's a normal pedagogical approach, where you teach the whole thing at once. When everything's thrown at you, it may not be perfect in terms of game-planning for that week, and it can look ugly."
i recall from coughlin's first season that he subscribed to something he termed "the overload principle", where they just threw everything at them all at once and made the players work thought it all. it was probably one of the reasons eli looked so bad in his first camp in 2004.
it's a bit unclear to me from the quote where gilbride references it as "a normal pedagogical approach" if it is basically a league-wide standard, or if it is an old-school or coughlin type thing and that there are alternative and more user-friendly ways to implement a new system. i've never coached so i have no idea.
but i can imagine the everything all at once approach being tough to handle, especially in the early goings. i hope it's just that because the alternative explanation is that the team has about 8 or 9 crappy starters on offense.
Then there are true one word hurry up plays. Simple one Clock down the ball or another code word used to signify a series of plays.
Sounds hard but we all recall phone numbers lyrics or whatever all the time in our daily life.
We= wide reciever
Coughlin has stated that concept from the day he hired McAdoo.
They look damned uncomfortable to me, so that part was a success.