it seems for short term gain he really screwed up his career by leaving the Giants. It appears he has become a pariah around the league in terms of a DC position. Is he still coaching for someone? Why wouldn't we consider bringing him back should PF get fired.?
Funny how ungood you become when you lack the talent you had in one location.
Sure you could. Who needs coaches anyway? Teams should just get rid of coaches and let the players draw their own plays in the dirt.
And yes, Spags is a genius! Like the guy above said, Saints had no talent whatsoever. None of their defensive players had any NFL ability and the Saints' D mysteriously got better when Spags left.
SPAGS!!!
Why hire him as DC? I say make him the HC!
You know that quite a few of his main defensive players were implicated and suspended. His defensive leader was one of them. Additionally in the whole choas he couldn't teach them his defense and shit just rolled down hill... He got the job, then the guy that hired him was suspended for the whole season, His players were being blamed for their past transgressions and their appeals were going on while they were expected to play....And in his attacking defense he needs the MLB to recognize plays and set up the defense appropriately.. With the distractions to their LBs that season there was no way they were going to pick up his complex defense... i'd take him over Fewell any day.. Other than a six game stretch, Fewell's defense has always disappointed...
Then he had a decent couple of years here.
He went to the bottom tier of HC positions without really sniffing any of the more coveted positions, but it was still a HC job. Did nothing since then.
There's really only one reason Giants fans pine for him: he had a good, but short, run with the Giants. IF he did the exact same career path, except substitute any other team not named Giants, and we'd laugh hysterically whenever anyone brought his name up.
He then takes an even worse job - probably the biggest black hole job in professional sports - on the staff of the Bounty-gated Saints. the entire organization mailed that season in before it began.
the stench of failure was huge at that point. he left here a respected and likable figure and after failing miserably at two dead-end jobs rumors surfaced he was being an asshole to people. Now he's out of a job.
Sometimes a bad rep and bad career decisions kill you. Same thing happened with Jim Fassell, who was just as good a coach as many yes-men retreads who continued in the league.
He then takes an even worse job - probably the biggest black hole job in professional sports - on the staff of the Bounty-gated Saints. the entire organization mailed that season in before it began.
the stench of failure was huge at that point. he left here a respected and likable figure and after failing miserably at two dead-end jobs rumors surfaced he was being an asshole to people. Now he's out of a job.
Sometimes a bad rep and bad career decisions kill you. Same thing happened with Jim Fassell, who was just as good a coach as many yes-men retreads who continued in the league.
Um, no he's not.
And Fassel pretty clearly got blackballed. Not sure how Jim made "bad choices" when he simply could not get an NFL level job after being fired by NYG.
I think I'd prefer him to Fewell solely because I (and the players) would rather play attacking D than read & react D.
Fewell gets me nervous.
That and stories about his work ethic seem to imply that Fassel might have just thought he deserved a second HC spot and wasn't putting in the work he needed to actually get one.
Never fails.
Know why Seattle's defense was so good last year? Their front 4 were annihilating people. Quinn didn't blitz a ton. He didn't need to. He could be aggressive with his CB's on the outside because they had safety valves. They weren't playing Cover 0 and throwing the kitchen sink at everyone.
People just have these perceptions about NFL defenses that for whatever reason, they will just not let go of.
As for Spags I would like him back simply because that's what he WANTS to do. Yeah he was terrible with the Saints but so would nearly anyone else be that year. Terrible situation, terrible personnel and correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I read somewhere at that time he got away from blitz and went more zone in N.O. because the personnel was so bad.
As for Spags I would like him back simply because that's what he WANTS to do. Yeah he was terrible with the Saints but so would nearly anyone else be that year. Terrible situation, terrible personnel and correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I read somewhere at that time he got away from blitz and went more zone in N.O. because the personnel was so bad.
How is this roster built that way?
Which players on this roster have excelled as blitzers in the past? How many CB's besides Prince have excelled in playing press/man coverage?
As for Spags I would like him back simply because that's what he WANTS to do. Yeah he was terrible with the Saints but so would nearly anyone else be that year. Terrible situation, terrible personnel and correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I read somewhere at that time he got away from blitz and went more zone in N.O. because the personnel was so bad.
Was just gonna say you can be a fking scheming genius, but if you don't have the pieces to carry it out, well...
We run zone looks but so does every defense.
I don't know where this whole notion that Fewell is trotting out zone looks and doesn't use any man coverage came from but it's just not true.
We run zone looks but so does every defense.
I don't know where this whole notion that Fewell is trotting out zone looks and doesn't use any man coverage came from but it's just not true.
Maybe because when he uses the zone looks, they don't work and thats the only time anyone is paying attention...when something goes wrong.
Therefore, it must happen...
EVERY PLAY.
Quote:
And just to add to my last post, DRC is obviously excellent in man coverage but he's been playing that for the most part. It's not like Fewell has him in zones constantly. He's covering outside WR's. As is Prince.
We run zone looks but so does every defense.
I don't know where this whole notion that Fewell is trotting out zone looks and doesn't use any man coverage came from but it's just not true.
Maybe because when he uses the zone looks, they don't work and thats the only time anyone is paying attention...when something goes wrong.
Therefore, it must happen...
EVERY PLAY.
Haha. Yeah, but when we get beat 1 on 1 (like DRC on Ertz) for a long TD, apparently that doesn't matter. Because man coverage always works.. zone never does.
He's a good DC, but let's also remember correctly that his highest levels of success with NYG were very short-lived. The defense wasn't killing it during his entire tenure, let's keep that in mind.
My guess is if they have another .500 or worse season, there will be some staff changes and possibly front office changes as well.
You don't want to panic of course, but they have been a .500 plus or minus a few since the Super Bowl run and that leads me to believe the issues are more than talent acquisition.
That and stories about his work ethic seem to imply that Fassel might have just thought he deserved a second HC spot and wasn't putting in the work he needed to actually get one.
Fassel didn't necessarily get blackballed, but if a team asked the Giants to vouch for him, they weren't going to do it based on personal antics. That closed a lot of doors for him.
He also didn't help himself with the Baltimore tenure when his own friend Billick threw him under the bus. the Washington papers tell the story that Fassel was the guy until Zorn won over Danny with his rah-rah stuff.
Fassel should've went back to college to coach, but was too stubborn and/or arrogant.
Funny how ungood you become when you lack the talent you had in one location.
I'm sure 10balls 120 rating didnt help the case....
Quote:
the way the roster is built dictates a blitz heavy, man coverage defense which is opposite of what Fewell wants to do.
As for Spags I would like him back simply because that's what he WANTS to do. Yeah he was terrible with the Saints but so would nearly anyone else be that year. Terrible situation, terrible personnel and correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I read somewhere at that time he got away from blitz and went more zone in N.O. because the personnel was so bad.
How is this roster built that way?
Which players on this roster have excelled as blitzers in the past? How many CB's besides Prince have excelled in playing press/man coverage?
Well DRC like you mentioned. I think McBride is good in man coverage. We brought in Thurmond. We brought back Ross last year. Will Hill played good man coverage from the safety position. Yes, all teams play some zone but from a base D I think this team is better suited for man coverage and it's been that way since JR has been GM.
As for blitzing, I don't think it's so much how often but the scheme. When Spags was here players came from all over and there were different looks. Sometimes D-lineman didn't drop they just opened holes for LBs as Olineman would for an RB. I don't see any of that with Fewell but I do with some of the better pass rushing teams in the league.
Even if we don't do that I would love to see players move around more. I was shocked to see JPP play LDE for a few snaps last week and quite frankly I'd like to see it more against the Cowboys, especially with a journeyman backup at RT. Look at JJ Watt. He doesn't stay in one place and it gives other teams something to think about. Think of the big Osi game against the the Eagles in '07. It was the same thing. Though he mostly abused Winston Justice, he was all over the line that game, same as Stray, Tuck, etc. during those years. Not just in one spot making it easier to scheme against.
Quote:
In comment 11924954 sjnyfan said:
Quote:
the way the roster is built dictates a blitz heavy, man coverage defense which is opposite of what Fewell wants to do.
As for Spags I would like him back simply because that's what he WANTS to do. Yeah he was terrible with the Saints but so would nearly anyone else be that year. Terrible situation, terrible personnel and correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I read somewhere at that time he got away from blitz and went more zone in N.O. because the personnel was so bad.
How is this roster built that way?
Which players on this roster have excelled as blitzers in the past? How many CB's besides Prince have excelled in playing press/man coverage?
Well DRC like you mentioned. I think McBride is good in man coverage. We brought in Thurmond. We brought back Ross last year. Will Hill played good man coverage from the safety position. Yes, all teams play some zone but from a base D I think this team is better suited for man coverage and it's been that way since JR has been GM.
As for blitzing, I don't think it's so much how often but the scheme. When Spags was here players came from all over and there were different looks. Sometimes D-lineman didn't drop they just opened holes for LBs as Olineman would for an RB. I don't see any of that with Fewell but I do with some of the better pass rushing teams in the league.
Even if we don't do that I would love to see players move around more. I was shocked to see JPP play LDE for a few snaps last week and quite frankly I'd like to see it more against the Cowboys, especially with a journeyman backup at RT. Look at JJ Watt. He doesn't stay in one place and it gives other teams something to think about. Think of the big Osi game against the the Eagles in '07. It was the same thing. Though he mostly abused Winston Justice, he was all over the line that game, same as Stray, Tuck, etc. during those years. Not just in one spot making it easier to scheme against.
We lost Thurmond after a game and a half so I don't really know how we'd know how Fewell would have deployed him. McBride was also lost after about 2 games of action. I don't recall him being wandering around in zones often and he forced a couple turnovers so he must have been in the right spots to do so.
Hill was far more dynamic and capable of handling someone 1 on 1. We've seen Stevie Brown and Demps both take awful angles and get beaten plenty early on in this year. I think it's a personnel issue there. Fewell knew Hill was a far better player than the guys who have replaced him and Hill was making plays all over the field. McBride also went from a guy who had bounced around the league and couldn't stay on anyone's roster to a guy who played very good football under Fewell and was a solid starting CB last year (and in his short time this year)
Fewell has moved guys around on the DL, he had the "NASCAR" package where he used Tuck, Osi, JPP and Kiwi as his 4 down linemen. So I don't think it's fair to say he won't move anyone around or always pits them in the same spots. He's had Ayers come from a few different spots and Ayers has been excellent for the most part so Perry must be doing something right with him. He'll slide Jenkins over to DE, he's done some shuffling.
The blitzing hasn't been so effective and maybe Fewell isn't at his strongest designing them or confusing teams with looks but I also really do not see many players in the back 7 that I'd trust to get home if they're sent and if you don't think your guy is going to get there, all you're doing is taking him out of the play.
he could scheme a blitz, at least.
+1
This I agree with 100% and my biggest problem. It doesn't matter what players you have, if you keep throwing the same look at an opponent they'll figure it out and scheme against it. Yes we do NASCAR but it's just Spags's Four Aces. Sure Ayers and Jenkins can play a little in and out but as I told a friend, it's not like we're trying to feng shui living room furniture for aesthetic pleasure.
Scheme is just as important as personnel. Look at the Cowboys. No one is going to tell me that they have a better defensive roster than we do. But give credit to Marinelli for getting them in the right place, coaching them up and executing at the LOS even with the losses they've had and the disaster they were last year
Don't ever forget what he did for us.
There was never any questioning by his players what his plan was and his players would follow him to hell and back.
Word.
TO's aren't everything. Spags scoring defense was ranked 17th in 2007 despite giving up 80 points in the first two games while they figured the D out. They only gave up more than 21 points twice after that including the postseason. In year two they were 5th.
Fewell's scoring D have been ranked 17th, 25th, 12th, 18th and this year so far 17th.
This year the top two scoring defenses Detroit and San Diego are tied for 13th in turnovers. They both have winning records though.
Quote:
The blitzing hasn't been so effective and maybe Fewell isn't at his strongest designing them or confusing teams with looks...
This I agree with 100% and my biggest problem. It doesn't matter what players you have, if you keep throwing the same look at an opponent they'll figure it out and scheme against it. Yes we do NASCAR but it's just Spags's Four Aces. Sure Ayers and Jenkins can play a little in and out but as I told a friend, it's not like we're trying to feng shui living room furniture for aesthetic pleasure.
Scheme is just as important as personnel. Look at the Cowboys. No one is going to tell me that they have a better defensive roster than we do. But give credit to Marinelli for getting them in the right place, coaching them up and executing at the LOS even with the losses they've had and the disaster they were last year
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.. you're saying Fewell doesn't move anyone around but then acknowledging that he does and saying it doesn't matter anyway?
Maybe Dallas' defensive roster isn't as bad as people think. Marinelli is going a good job there but it's also not even been a half season. We have to see if they sustain it. Sometimes it's just a matter of teams catching up and figuring out where they can exploit someone.
I don't know, people always talk about Fewell not using any of his players to their strengths and then I see posts here about how Robert Ayers looks better here than he has at any other point in his career so far or I see a Trumaine McBride come out of nowhere and all of a sudden look like an NFL caliber starting CB when 3 other teams didn't see that in him.
I've just always felt like the perception of what other DC's in this league are doing is distorted by a lot of people who don't see a lot of other defenses or pay much attention to them. Just because teams have CB's who can play man doesn't mean they always play man. You can get exploited in man coverages just as much as you can get exploited in zones. There just seems to be this idea that every time we're beat, it's because of a "soft zone" when in reality, that is not the case.
They're 100% important, though. Look at the percentages of how much more favorable your chances are to win football games when you win the turnover battle. It is huge. To just dismiss it is being naive. Being able to consistently force turnovers in a league that so heavily favors offensive ball movement is a big plus. I would not just write it off as some "eh, whatever" stat.
Quote:
One more thing I will add.. Spags' defenses here did not force nearly as many turnovers as Fewell's. The 2007 and 2008 defenses were 20th and 23rd respectively in TO's forced. Fewell has had multiple top 3-5 units and once again, we are top 5 right now.
TO's aren't everything. Spags scoring defense was ranked 17th in 2007 despite giving up 80 points in the first two games while they figured the D out. They only gave up more than 21 points twice after that including the postseason. In year two they were 5th.
Fewell's scoring D have been ranked 17th, 25th, 12th, 18th and this year so far 17th.
This year the top two scoring defenses Detroit and San Diego are tied for 13th in turnovers. They both have winning records though.
Also, offenses can negatively or positively impact defensive points against numbers. The 2013 Giants were a perfect example. We were routinely put in positions where opposing offenses STARTED drives in FG range because of our penchant for turning the football over multiple times a game. We handed teams 3-4.. sometimes more.. extra drives in nearly every football game. Obviously a defense is going to allow more points when that is the case. TD's that happen against us (and there were many, in the form of pick 6's or PR/KR TD's) without the defense on the field still count as points allowed.. even if the defense didn't give up the points.
Conversely an offense that can continually move the football, (see: SD) will help a defense by being on the field a lot and preventing opposing teams from getting good field position often.
Actually arc, they are giving up the 1st downs earlier now, on 1st & 2nd down.
I agree. I used to think the same thing but he's done well with that over the past few years. The mixup with that I think is how long the D is on the field. In 2010, Fewell's first year, The Giants D was first in opposing TOP per drive. However in year 2, 11th
2012: 32nd
2013: 14th (though I think alot of that has to do with how you mentioned a lot of short field because of the TO's)
2014 so far: 4th though I bet Sunday knocked us down. We'll see how this year plays out.
Quote:
Another big knock has been the defense not getting off the field on 3rd downs (which I definitely agreed was an issue). We are the 3rd best team in football in that regard right now. So he should get a little credit for fixing that issue as well. At least for now.
Actually arc, they are giving up the 1st downs earlier now, on 1st & 2nd down.
The Giants are 15th in 1st downs allowed per game. Seattle is just beneath us at 16, FWIW.. I know everyone think they're the gold standard (they're really not this year)
Eyeball test, right now we look ok against shitty teams and terrible against decent/good teams. That's a problem, has been a problem and unless something changes, will continue to be a problem.
It could have been a different ball game if we could have actually moved the football and put a little pressure on them to have to score. They were never in danger of losing the game. We had 12 first downs TOTAL. We were 2-14 on 3rd downs.
Bad offense lends itself to bad defense.
Eyeball test, right now we look ok against shitty teams and terrible against decent/good teams. That's a problem, has been a problem and unless something changes, will continue to be a problem.
The eyeball test always comes out when the stats don't say what people want it to say. By the way, the Giants Defense held the NFC West leading Cardinals to 13 points over the first three quarters before the game was given away by the offense and special teams. So the only good against bad teams stuff isn't exactly true.
What happened to Spagnuolo is the norm, not the exception. It happened to Belichick and Carroll in their first tours as HC. It came within a few phone calls of happening to Parcells in 1984. The more interesting cases are the few who beat the odds and achieve immediate success, like the Harbaughs and Chip Kelly. If we're lucky, the wheel will turn for Kelly as well.
The eyeball test always comes out when the stats don't say what people want it to say. By the way, the Giants Defense held the NFC West leading Cardinals to 13 points over the first three quarters before the game was given away by the offense and special teams. So the only good against bad teams stuff isn't exactly true.
Football isn't basevball, stats aren't the end all be all. One stat that has been pretty bad for years is scoring against us. It hasn't been good.
Let's be honest, the Cardinals haven't been lighting it up. Our offense lost that game However,no one has had any trouble containing the Cardinals offense this year; they have been putrid.
Funny how ungood you become when you lack the talent you had in one location.
Sorry Joey to disagree, after the way you've revealed yourself personally here I've got nothing but great thoughts about you as a person. But your analysis above is baloney, and if you weren't paying attention to what Spags did overall with that D I don't know what to say.
I'm not going to rip apart each Giant player you mention for their flaws because there were plenty, and anyone who watched the Giants' or Bears' front 7s of the mid 80s would know that the team D Spags coached up to the SB win was not uber-talented. Stray was well on the downside of his illustrious career - to the point that he almost never drew double teams. After Corey Webster (who was great during Spags' time here) most of the DB corps was thin and thinner. And the pressure that vaunted front 7 delivered was a much or more a result of Spags' schemes and well executed blitzes as it was individuals dominating one on one battles.
I call bullshit that a merely average NFL DC could have got that group to dominate the Pats, or several other teams they stifled those playoffs.
And I said it at the time too when many BBIers thought our DL was something akin to the Rams' Fearsome Foursome or Minny's Purple People Eaters. They weren't.
If more people used the same standards for both guys then this argument wouldn't come up as often as it does as it would then be a discussion about relative strengths and flaws
Holding the Eagles to their second-highest point total last weekend was not good D.