Banks on the fan

Fewell "simplifying the scheme" and "doing what we do best".

I think Fewell sucks.

Not a big fan of soft coverage, playing not to lose football

Everyone loves man coverage until a guy like Herzlich is forced to play and starts getting completely exploited.

How did Jordy Nelson keep finding open spaces yesterday against the Jets. Doesn't Rex Ryan know what he's doing?

We will have no logical discussion here.

That rookie bit on an already well-covered crossing pattern on Nelson's 80 yard TD catch. He should've given the corner help. Rookies make mistakes.

On Golden Tate's 44 yard catch in week 1 on 3rd & 11, there are no rookies in the secondary for the Giants. There are just experienced players who appear to have no idea what they're doing.

Some fans will conflate issues ... on the whole yesterday the defense did a decent job. Played well in a few spots, poorly in others, especially after the injuries and fatigue crept in. The punt return TD and turnovers certainly played a more distinct and decisive role in the loss formula. But, a lot of PF's calls and decisions being questioned are reasonable at the same time, imv.

I'm sure you recognize I understand your position here.

As stated we were leading 14-13 in the 4th, and 7 of the 13 pts was a gift from the refs (we had like 20 penalties). Then the punt return for TD, then the Demps fumble (which the defense did its job and held to a FG). Now the score is 22-14, but the defense still only gave up6-13 pts in my book.

Jon.. I have no issue with your stance on this issue even if we disagree in some aspects because you actually attempt to back your posts up with logical evidence or thought.

I am just tired of "Fewell sucks.. everything is zone coverage.. too complex... no one knows what they're doing"

They're all lazy arguments that piggyback and echo things that other people say. A lot of these things have no context and have become accepted as "fact" in this forum and it just annoys me. I just get the impression that a lot of these people would notice a lot of the same things they complain about around the league if they paid a this much attention to the other 31 teams. The pass is so damn difficult to shut down now when you get flagged for tapping a guy while he's running a route.

As far as the Tate play goes, DRC passed him off sooner than he should have. It was a fundamental error and a fuck up on his behalf. It's ok to say that DRC messed up. It doesn't mean Fewell called a coverage that was designed to have no one within 15 yards of a WR down the sideline.

Fewell for my money is an average DC. I don't think he's able to run the types of looks he really wants to consistently because he keeps losing the guys he trusts. We all know that he likes to deploy 3 safeties but when Quintin Demps is your 3rd safety, it gets a bit hard to do. You lose your main guy in the middle in Beason yesterday, you lose the promising young Kennard in week 1.

I realize adjustments need to be made but I also understand the apprehension on his behalf when it comes to isolating subpar players.

And finally, while I share the frustration of everyone about the 3rd down defense, the backup we lost to yesterday threw for 167 yards and didn't throw a TD pass. So this whole "guys are wide open all over the field left and right" just doesn't do much for me in regards to the game yesterday.

Understood, no argument on that front from me.

for years now. However i thought he had a sound gameplan yesterday. Im still not a fan of the huge cushions but thats a different story. I think Beason going down really affected his ability to call the game and limited his playbook. With Kennard going down last week that really made them have to go to the 3rd string option of Herzlich. Hopefully Beason isnt out and if he is and KEnnard isnt back then have McClain play MLB and bring in Paysinger. I think he can be a decent LB if he can be given direction instead of being the one responsible to be giving it like in the past.

29 times adjusted for the penalties. They hit him 10 times. What read & react? The coverage calls are fine. On this team Reese pays the DBs & WRs besides Eli: They're not making plays. Cruz & Randle lost the game if you need to think like that. On defense Williams is terrible. Stevie Brown is slow and his sure hands have deserted him. I am sorry. I've seen Perry Fewell devise game plans that stymied New England & Green Bay in huge games. They have enough players to be a reasonably effective defense but even in the sub he gets killed when he leaves Williams in the game. The Cardinals targeted 57 yesterday. That should have been obvious to all of you. Short money stop gaps & an injury prone talented Mike who has returned to form, pass as a line backing unit.

If we catch all the dropped passes, tackle Ginn and don't fumble the kickoff, do we win the game?

In comment 11864727 Stu said:

Quote:

If we catch all the dropped passes, tackle Ginn and don't fumble the kickoff, do we win the game?

Not only is the answer to this "yes", but we probably win it by more than a TD.

And good post, RJ...

I'm mystified where people are getting "read and react" from in a game where we blitzed often, hit the QB 10 times and sacked him 4. People keep calling for "aggressive".. that's not aggressive?

Like I said. There are buzzwords about this defense that people just run with even if they don't necessarily apply.

Cruz didn't lose the game - he dropped some key passes

Cards shouldn't have scored their first TD - that one was on the refs. They shouldn't have scored on the punt return either - and then there was Jennings turning the ball over as the Giants were going down to score and tie the game up

That's where the game was lost - How Cruz get's blamed for the Punt return for a TD - I just don't see how that's his fault.

.

I think so as well, so the players fuck up and it's the coaching?

We scored 14 points.


People, 14 points. You don't win games scoring 14 points.

After lions game talked differant packages he had and
some he didn't use because the outcome of game...
sounds like he lets teams dictate to us if his plan
doesnt work he sticks to it...beason gets hurt he
puts hertz in....should put mclain mlb..and paysinger
and Williams olb

But don't worry - there's always next week. They'll have their chance to lose the game in excruciating fashion.

nothing more, nothing less and the Giants don't have one and have not had one in years.

The talent is there on D.

..and Kennard is legit (and healthy)

Right now, our LBers without those 2 are very bad. Very bad.

We also lost arguably the most talented player on this defense (Hill)

And our slot corner is already gone for the year.

I think we have the personnel right now to be slightly above average.

Highly disruptive? I don't know. Though I'd consider hitting the QB 10 times and sacking him 4 should probably fall under that category.

in 2 games is not a highly disruptive defense.

Giving up 3rd and long 1st downs is not a highly disruptive defense.

.

The Ravens played what I call a highly disruptive style defense against Pitt last Thursday evening.

7 men on the D-line every 3rd and long in stand up blitz position. Ben did not know what was coming, that's my definition of highly disruptive.

I doubt we see that all year from this defense.

...so their looks are going to be different than ours. They also play a lot of zone which a lot of people here seem to think is the worst thing in the world until they realize that it means a garbage player like Mark Herzlich is going to be responsible for covering a TE or RB when he's on the field.

the formation name for a front 7 standing up right at the D-Line on obvious 3rd down passing plays, but it sure was very disruptive.

Also, the D backs of the Ravens were hitting the helmets off the Pitt receivers when they got a first touch on the ball - highly disruptive regardless of front formation type.

The had 1 pick off Ben and 2 forced fumbles, highly disruptive.

Against Cincinatti?

They allowed 380 yards of offense, didn't force a turnover and lost the game.

and giving an example of a "highly disruptive" defense. Sorry if you don't get my reference.

But the Giants defense will have a game this year where they force multiple turnovers and knock some guys around. Most defenses will. You can't base much off one game.

against Drew Stanton, a back up QB who might have been a better baseball player than he is a football player, and that's not saying much.

I don't like PF as a DC. His defense is more often then not, bend but don't break mentality which is not what a disruptive D is, its about dictating the tempo from that side of the ball.

The body of work for PF has a long history, many games.

Stanton was not put in a position, where he had to win the game......

And that history includes a Super Bowl championship where our defense shut down two of the best offenses in the NFL along the way.

His history also includes being a top 5 NFL defense in turnovers forced in 2010 (1st overall) , 2011 (t- 5th) and 2012 (3rd). They were tied for 8th in the NFL last year.

But since they haven't forced a turnover in a whopping 2 games this year, we're not "disruptive" enough now.

Drew Stanton threw for 167 yards and didn't throw a TD pass. I'm not sure what more you were expecting. 50 passing yards?

Oh.. and he was never a baseball player. That was Drew Henson.

This Drew had not thrown a pass in the NFL for 4 years and the Giants could not force a TO!

The Giants defense plays reactive football, you can quote any stat you want, enjoy yourself into believing that this Giants defense plays DISRUPTIVE FOOTBALL under PF.

Have it your way guy.

Ravens have 2 sacks in 2 games this year.

do you have a reading comprehension issue?

Did you really read my posts? I referenced NFL game 2 Steelers - Ravens, nothing more.

if the officials weren't on an "illegal contact-defensive holding" bender.

In comment 11865412 JPinstripes said:

Quote:

This Drew had not thrown a pass in the NFL for 4 years and the Giants could not force a TO! The Giants defense plays reactive football, you can quote any stat you want, enjoy yourself into believing that this Giants defense plays DISRUPTIVE FOOTBALL under PF. Have it your way guy.

Sure, or I can just start calling for "DISRUPTIVE" defense and create my own definition of it to fit my arguments like you are.

Which, by the way.. all of your arguments are awful. First you cite them forcing turnovers as the key to their "disruption" and then you say the Giants haven't been "disruptive" in years.. meanwhile they've been top 5 in turnovers forced in 3 of the 4 years Fewell has been here and top 10 in all 4 of them.

You use Baltimore as this model disruptive defense even though they got fucking smoked by Cincy in Week 1 and didn't force ANY turnovers.

But hey, their front 7 all stand up on 3rd downs and they knocked someone's helmet off so they're DISRUPTIVE.

Ravens had 2 sacks, 0 QB hits, 0 TFLs. Meanwhile over in New Jersey, the Giants didn't lay a hand on Drew Henson all day.

think disruptive Defense is about QB sacks?

Its about being physical against the run, with run blitz schemes, its about hitting hard when the receiver first touches the ball, its about confusing the QB with coverage reads that are constantly changing.

With a PF defense its a 4 man rush and zone coverage that often mis-communicates on zone split routes, time and time again. Not much variation.

We don't have the horses at linebacker to play the kind of defense you want to play. We also don't have the strong safety play (read: Stevie Brown).

Reggie Bush carried the ball 9 times for 11 yards and Bell carried it 15 times for 51 yards.

And again. If all you see are 4 man rushes and zone coverages you simply do not know what you are watching. We sent extra men numerous times yesterday on blitzes and a bunch of them got there. We hit Stanton 10 times and sacked him 4.

The problem with guys like you is that you don't understand that we cannot play man coverage on every down nor does any NFL defense. You especially can't do it when you lose your middle linebacker and are already down another and then lose your slot CB on top of it. You wind up with guys who can't cover 1 on 1 against fast backs or TE's who are mismatches for them and guys get open easily.

This isn't Madden.

Or one unit within each side of the ball.

The problems have been too many bad mistakes at crucial times. And it's all around the team.

Are you are another guy with a reading comprehension issue or are you just intentionally mis quoting me?

I referenced as an example what I saw in the Steelers - Ravens game - nothing more.

There is nothing awful about my reference, but if you want to go on believing that PF and the Giants play disruptive football on defense then go ahead and delude yourself with your stats. I am not here to convince you. I know what I know and see what I see.

3X and PF had he defense in react mode, remember me please ;)

Good night

So I'm just letting you know.

You're also making up your own definitions of what is "disruptive" and what isn't.

How did LeSean McCoy do against us last year? Jamaal Charles? Adrian Peterson? Matt Forte?

Keep telling me we're not physical against the run. I'll keep naming guys that we've held far below their standards recently.

Another BBI buzzword special.

Whoopty damn do.

I've spent way too much time on this thread today. I'm over it.

Giants gave up 140+ rushing and over 300 yards passing. You want to pull random stats? Is that your reference regarding holding McCoy in a game? The great D under PF?

The Giants D under PF gave up about 400 yards per game against Chi and KC respectively. Is that your reference for the GREAT Giants defense under PF?

They held Charles and Forte? You are AWFUL, if that's the stuff you can spew on here with confidence trying to make a point then have at it with others that won't call your BS.

I said clearly, what my eyes told me with a 1 game reference, but you have to pull stats to defend the PF defense????

You are delusional if you or any other Giants fan thinks PF plays a disruptive defense style. It's READ and REACT, BEND and not BREAK. Ohhhhh