This morning he was on Boomer and Carton and I thought this was a little interesting. I will quote to the best of my recollection.
When Carton asked "did Eli like the Ben McAdoo system"?
"He did, I think it is a good system for Eli at this point in his career. You know, I mean they won two super bowls with Kevin Gilbride, and I love Kevin but that system was a hard system (raised his eyes for emphasis) it puts a lot on a QB, he's kind of waiting, waiting, waiting.. when you give receivers decisions to make fifteen yards down the field." At that point Boomer cuts him off and we never hear the rest of his thought.
No nothing like that. He actually was very positive but was too anxious to start saying how they (Gaints) weren't that far away and wanted to start listing the areas of improvement he thought they needed.
Typical jock that hasn't had formal training in interviewing people and simply not understanding when it is better to just sit back and let the person being interviewed keep talking until a new question is needed to be asked. Just an amateur mistake, he was thinking about what he wanted to say when the more interesting thing was what Archie was saying.
Actually I watch Boomer and Carton fairly often and Boomer is generally very positive and complimentary of Eli.
January 29, 2015 at 8:52 AM
http://nyc.podcast.play.it/media/d0/d0/d1/d7/dC/dQ/dM/17CQM_3.MP3?authtok=5562627417317909773_6YojPLZPqpfJ3hsa61W7e1pUdM&show=Boomer+%26+Carton&episode=01-29+Archie+Manning&category=Sports+%26+Recreation&callsign=WFANAM&market=new-york&listeningSessionID=548277f9cc0e6dfb_4707088_JwOj41iF_0000000VqOh - ( New Window )
It's his opinion, so whatever, he's allowed to not be high on him if he so isn't, but he's hardly to be described as usually complimentary or positive about Manning.
2) Rapport / Longevity in the system is more important
3) Puts a greater emphasis on a strong OL given the amount of time needed to let the play develop on many of the plays
4) With the size/strength/speed / injuries / free agency and churn in the game today
5) doe to the complexity of the O it lends itself to more interceptions especially when 1) and 2) and 3) aren't working well
It's just harder to run the system effectively as the game goes on. But when it's on with the talent and experience it needs, it's awesome.
Archie has had a much better career running interference for his boys than he had as a qb.
My layman opinion is that the old system is the opposite of what the Giants run now. It was a system designed to operate when pass defense was still legal in the NFL. When it was actually difficult to complete a pass.
I think that is why the routes were usually long and slow developing. It was harder to get a completion, so when you did, it was supposed to hurt the opposition, gain a chunk of yards. Compare that to a west coast type system like now in the NFL where you see quick hits and dump-offs and you depend on the receiver to gain yards after the catch.
Also, the option routes are used heavily to defeat pass coverage. This was needed more when DB's could actually play D and challenge the receivers physically. Now you can get easy completions and depend on yards after the catch since the DB's can not even breathe on a receiver or it is a penalty.
I do not think any of us should ever say a bad thing about that offense, especially after 2011. That passing game led by the best QB play in the league basically carried the Giants to a title. Comeback after comeback and capped off with a title winning drive. truthfully, we still do not know if this system will be able to deliver the goods when the chips are down. The old offense did, twice.
2) Rapport / Longevity in the system is more important
3) Puts a greater emphasis on a strong OL given the amount of time needed to let the play develop on many of the plays
4) With the size/strength/speed / injuries / free agency and churn in the game today
5) doe to the complexity of the O it lends itself to more interceptions especially when 1) and 2) and 3) aren't working well
It's just harder to run the system effectively as the game goes on. But when it's on with the talent and experience it needs, it's awesome.
This could be a reason why some of our more talented offenses of previous years were often bogged down with frustrating inconsistency. Shockey for instance, seemed to hate the offense and never adjusted well to it. It looked like Plax and Toomer took a couple of years to get comfortable in it. Mario always seemed lost and didn't really flourish until the Giants modified his role as the third receiver when they won it all in '11. More cerebral receivers like Steve Smith appeared to acclimate quickly but they were often the exception not the rule in terms of adjustment period.
It certainly seemed to be a high-precision offense, if everything aligned and clicked it could be difficult for a defense to stop. However, too many variables seemingly had to align just right and it malfunctioned or led to less than optimal performance more often than not.
I'm not killing him for it, because people are entitled to not be fans of certain guys, but he just isn't "pro" Eli -- I don't mean he's just not a homer either. He was pretty clearly mostly negative on him, with putting him as the worst in the NFL, killing him for looking disinterested, etc just this season.
I mean, seasons easily better than his "demotion" in 2011 when you're claiming he flourished after they allegedly modified his role.
As for Cruz, him being a undrafted free agent would only be a factor if he was a bonehead on the football field. Not to mention, he had almost a whole year on IR to study the offense.
Burress was in the middle of quite a few "miscommunications". I am grateful for Gilbride, however I don't see Archie's comments being any different than what commentators and former players have said about the old offense. For as much as it bothers you that people go out of their way to defend Manning, you certainly do the same for the coaches.
In comment 12114261 HomerJones45 said:
Quote:
1) Requires above average intelligence and continuity between receiver and QB
2) Rapport / Longevity in the system is more important
3) Puts a greater emphasis on a strong OL given the amount of time needed to let the play develop on many of the plays
4) With the size/strength/speed / injuries / free agency and churn in the game today
5) doe to the complexity of the O it lends itself to more interceptions especially when 1) and 2) and 3) aren't working well
It's just harder to run the system effectively as the game goes on. But when it's on with the talent and experience it needs, it's awesome.
Yes, obviously because rookie Steve Smith, UFA Cruz, and that rocket scientist Burress all had such trouble picking it up.
Archie has had a much better career running interference for his boys than he had as a qb.
Can someone name a system that doesn't require receivers to make decisions 15 yards down the field? Just review some of Odell's TD catches this year and you will see him making cuts downfield based on the defense. The above criticism which has been uttered time and time again is disingenious to say the least
That said, I think there is too much hand-wringing about the complexity of KG's offense. A number of teams have run similar schemes successfully. That said, I don't think they can be run in today's NFL. With the reduced practice time, there isn't enough work to get all players on the same page.
Quote:
"it puts a lot on a QB, he's kind of waiting, waiting, waiting.. when you give receivers decisions to make fifteen yards down the field."
Can someone name a system that doesn't require receivers to make decisions 15 yards down the field? Just review some of Odell's TD catches this year and you will see him making cuts downfield based on the defense. The above criticism which has been uttered time and time again is disingenious to say the least
I would think Archie who is more tuned in than any of us are wouldn't make this comment if it didn't have some validity. Just about all modern offenses carry options/sight adjustments but at varying levels. I think the contention here is the Gilbride version carried way too many decisions for the QB and his receivers to the point of being cumbersome and sometimes disadvantageous.
That said, I think there is too much hand-wringing about the complexity of KG's offense. A number of teams have run similar schemes successfully. That said, I don't think they can be run in today's NFL. With the reduced practice time, there isn't enough work to get all players on the same page.
i think it can be - it requires OL to sustain blocks for 5 seconds, a QB that forces himself to check it down to a RB or TE, and WRs that get up to speed and have good body language with Eli, the way Cruz and OBJ clearly have. Randle and Manningham took their entire time to really get comfortable. lots of wrong routes in the old system. its a down the field offense, which is great, but when the QB hears footsteps and is given no time, well - 2013 happens.
Quote:
Yes, McAdoo's offense does include WR options, but there are fewer options in the "route tree", and not all routes have those options.
That said, I think there is too much hand-wringing about the complexity of KG's offense. A number of teams have run similar schemes successfully. That said, I don't think they can be run in today's NFL. With the reduced practice time, there isn't enough work to get all players on the same page.
i think it can be - it requires OL to sustain blocks for 5 seconds, a QB that forces himself to check it down to a RB or TE, and WRs that get up to speed and have good body language with Eli, the way Cruz and OBJ clearly have. Randle and Manningham took their entire time to really get comfortable. lots of wrong routes in the old system. its a down the field offense, which is great, but when the QB hears footsteps and is given no time, well - 2013 happens.
^^^^^well put.
Unlike many here I like Francesca, but he too, often cuts off a guest at a point where I am all ears, and in some cases goes in a direction where it appears as if he is trying to show the guest just how knowledgeable he, Francesca really is.
He is not a amateur, but he does have a big ego.
These guys talk for a living, and they are knowledgeable, but often come across as if the only important perspective on a given topic, is theirs.
Quote:
In comment 12114381 Section331 said:
Quote:
Yes, McAdoo's offense does include WR options, but there are fewer options in the "route tree", and not all routes have those options.
That said, I think there is too much hand-wringing about the complexity of KG's offense. A number of teams have run similar schemes successfully. That said, I don't think they can be run in today's NFL. With the reduced practice time, there isn't enough work to get all players on the same page.
i think it can be - it requires OL to sustain blocks for 5 seconds, a QB that forces himself to check it down to a RB or TE, and WRs that get up to speed and have good body language with Eli, the way Cruz and OBJ clearly have. Randle and Manningham took their entire time to really get comfortable. lots of wrong routes in the old system. its a down the field offense, which is great, but when the QB hears footsteps and is given no time, well - 2013 happens.
^^^^^well put.
Putting things in perspective, Eli had his second best season his first year in the MacAdoo system while taking almost half the year to get adjusted. Eli TD/int ratio in the previous system was 229 to 171 (1.3:1) in the new , 30 to 14 (2.1: 1) I think a strong argument can be made that this new offense is far more QB/WR friendly than the previous one. Excited to see when we have as many pieces that Gilbride had to work with.
TMS, I think this and my 9:16 are pretty darn same page, and accurate as well! That's not to say a change in approach was not in order given the changes in the game, but it would be ironic if the quicker releases, shorter patterns (on balance) that is McAdoo's system was finally accompanied by a laser focus on what brought KG's down, i.e., the ineptitude of the OL. A one (Pugh) and a two (Westburg) are steps in the right direction, but this was all forced on R&R given the dreadful state their neglect foisted on the OL. Same with 2014 FA makeover, desperation moves that made for a lot of noise but little improvement.
Agreed, in 2013 before the early injuries caught up to them, the Giants scored 54 points on the Cowboys and Broncos with 812 yards passing by Eli in those two game. The system was still working with a reasonably healthy Oline in 2013
Isn't that proof in the pudding for the other system which he acheived the best stats of his career.
This is what I strongly, strongly disagree with. There were a ton of quick short passes to Cruz, Nicks, Steve Smith and others in the Gilbride system. It wasn't as empanthized as it is in a West Coast Offense but the QB was given the option to take what the deffense gives him and Eli oftendid. Otherwise there is no way Smith catches a 107 passes in 2009.
And why oh why do people refuse to remember all the wide reciever screens that Nicks and Manningham used to catch regularly. In the final drive of the superbowl, the touchdown Bradshaw scored was set up by a Nick screen pass. The elements everyone loves about this offense were in the last one was well. The parts that everyone hates about the last offense are in this one as well.
Case in point, no one right now is critizing Romo's judgement or his team's offensive system for going deep on a 4th & 1 to Dez Byrant in the Playoffs. And it's not just because of the catch/non-catch call, I have seen very very little of the "you have the best oline in the league, why didn't you run for the yard?" second guessing.
Do you take every public statement from team officials at face value or acknowledge that sometimes Reese and Company say what they think the listeners want to hear. I think Archie did the same thing.
I also take Gilbride's statements about 2013 with a grain of salt as well but I will say this. The crappy run-blocking 2014 oline produced 19 more rushing yards per game then the 2013 oline as well as allowing 10 less sacks in the season. Add in the better play from the tight-ends and running backs and you can see why some of us do not feel that the throwaround was completely due to a change in system.
Having said that, I am happy that we seem to have replaced a good offensive coordinator with another good one. I look forward to seeing what Eli does in this system with another offseason and a complete year of Odell.
No mystery at all to me. Winning a Super Bowl... in large part with a GREAT draft... in his first season... then, to prove the first one wasn't a fluke (he won with EA's guys)... won another one four years later... I'd think was the reason why he's gotten such a long rope.
It's been repeated over an over that Reese hasn't spent the resources (usually meant to mean draft picks) on O-lineman during his tenure as GM here but let's take a look more closely as to perhaps WHY there weren't many picks spent on O-lineman throughout the years. Keep in mind, I'm only counting o-lineman picked AFTER the Giants first round pick since they couldn't have drafted an o-lineman before then (because they'd been picked obviously):
Let's skip 2007 since it was perhaps the Giants' greatest draft... it was Reese's first year... and hey, the team won a championship and move on to 2008...
2008:
1 - Kenny Phillips - at the time not many complained about this pick and in fact most were happy as hell over it
2 - Terrell Thomas - Again, another pick that filled need with BPA and a solid pick
3 - Mario Manningham - yet another value pick with Toomer on his last legs
Upon further analysis (2008):
In rounds two and three only FOUR OL were picked throughout the whole round (Chilo Rachal at #39 by Niners and Mike Pollak at #59 by Colts in the 2nd round and John Greco at #65 by the Rams and Jeremy Zuttah at #83 by the Bucs). None of the I would think that no one would argue that Reese should've chosen any of the previous four o-lineman with the 1st, 2nd or 3rd round pick I think we can all agree. Nothing wrong with what Reese did here.
2009:
1 - Hakeem Nicks - another good value pick (particularly at the time) that produced a player who'd be a big part of another Super Bowl run a few years later
2 - Clint Sintim - Bust
2b - Will Beatty - Starting LT that also helped win a Super Bowl
3 - Ramses Barden - Bust
Upon further analysis (2009):
Well, first off, he spent a 2nd rounder on an o-lineman (Beatty). After the Nicks pick, 8 o-lineman were picked from the end of Rd 1 to the end of Rd three. Beatty was one of them. One could argue (in most cases using hindsight I'd say) that he could've picked more o-lineman with the Sintim and Barden picks... but while Sintim was a pick I remember being criticized somewhat, I don't recall hearing too many complaining about the Barden pick ('A big WR to take the place Plax for high throwing Eli!' was what I remember hearing a lot). But like I said, a premium pick was spend on an o-lineman. And truth be told, with the exception of maybe Eben Britton (#39 to Jax), Max Unger (#49 to Seahawks) and Sebastion Vollmer (#58 to the Pats), none of the guys left really were worth a damn.
2010:
1 - Jason Pierre-Paul - I doubt I'll get little argument about this pick
2 - Linval Joseph - Again, good pick and player
3 - Chad Jones - Who knows what could've been had he not gotten into that accident
Upon further analysis (2010):
Sure either Iupati (pick #17) or Pouncey (pick #18 both picked within 2 of the next three picks after JPP) could've maybe be the pick over JPP... but I think most would agree that a great DE beats a great G or C every day and of the week and twice on Sunday. Even Bulaga (picked at #23) would've been a good pick... but not over JPP (who also helped us win a SB by the way). Only 3 lineman were picked between the Joseph pick and the Chad Jones pick (which was #76) but except for maybe Jared Veldheer (pick # 69 by the Raiders), none of them have done shit in the league (Vlad Ducasse by the Jets and Charles Brown by the Saints). By the way, we have two players who were selected in that draft in the 3rd round on our team in John Jerry (Miami at #73 and J.D. Walton by the Broncos at #80). Taking all of the above into account, who should Reese had picked... that was available when we picked... that was better than what Reese selected? Maybe Walton? Who supposedly looked very good before injuring himself?
2011:
1 - Prince Amukamara - ANOTHER value pick getting a guy most thought would go in the top 10 at #19. Most, if not all, of BBI was ecstatic to get this guy.
2 - Marvin Austin - at the time viewed as another good value pick.
3 - Jerrell Jernigan - this one was... and still is... a head scratcher for me.
Upon further analysis (2011):
After Prince in the 1st, 14 o-lineman were selected in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounds. But, except for about 3 or 4 of them (Carimi to the Bears at #29, MAYBE Orlando Franklin to the Broncos at #46, MAYBE Stephen Wisnewski to the Raiders at #48 and) none of the others have done much of note. I doubt you'd take Carimi, Wisnewski or anyone else over Prince and I don't see any o-lineman that I would've taken over Austin at the time.
Because this is getting VERY long I'll stop at 2012 (besides, the next year we spent a #1 pick on Pugh):
1 - David Wilson - busted due to injury
2 - Rueben Randle - Starter who we hope the light has come on
3 - Jayron Holsey - Shown flashes here and there but seems to be a bust
Upon further analysis (2012):
Besides Mitchell Schwartz (Browns at #37) and Cordy Glenn (Bills at #41), not many good o-lineman between the 11 that were picked between the Wilson and Holsey picks. We needed a RB to take over for Bradshaw and Jacobs after yet another Super Bowl run, so the Wilson pick made sense and we could've used WR help, so Randle made sense as well. It could be argued that both Schwartz and Glenn would've been good helpful picks but that means no Wilson (which of course NOW it would seem to be the right move).
From 2008 to 2012 it can be argued that Reese hit on a majority of his 1st through 3rd round picks. Of the 15 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks made during that span, only 5 were what I, and I think most, would consider flat out busts (Sintim, Jones (due to injury), Austin and maybe Jernigan, Holsey). Every other player either has or had shown that they can play and be at least a decent started on this team in the past several years. Besides a few players here and there, exactly what lineman should Reese have drafted who would've been or are better players than who he selected?
During this time span Reese selected 5 o-lineman (Beatty, Petrus, Brewer, McCants and Mosley) out of 38 possible picks. Meanwhile the Cowboys (who I think everyone agrees has the best o-line in the business right now) spent 5 out of 32 (in two of the drafts during that span not spending a single pick in two whole drafts ('08 and '12) and in another where they had a whopping 12 picks only spending one of them on an o-lineman). The Niners, who everyone thought had the best o-line for the past few seasons before this one, had 6 o-lineman drafted in 38 picks in that span. So Reese hasn't spent any more or less picks on o-lineman than the two teams with arguably the best o-lines in the game today!
I say all of the above to say that it's time to put to bed the myth that Reese didn't spend picks on o-lineman AND I'd argue that just because he didn't spend premium picks on them doesn't mean that he should've. Looking at the attached link, you'll see that he didn't miss out on too many good lineman between the years of '08 to '12.
Whew... I expect to get a lot of 'tl:dr's after that post! But I had the time and finally felt like putting forth the effort to dispel this myth.
NFL. com drafts - ( New Window )
Coach Mason - thank you and I agree with everything in your post. I don't think it's an accident that Reese's best draft (2007) was the one he was most involved in because of the transfer of power from Accorsi to him (and various other factors).
I think what people need to understand and keep in mind is Reese's mantra... 'We pick good football players'. Spending picks on o-lineman... or any position for that matter... just to be able to say you picked them doesn't help much if most of the lineman you pick suck (which it seemed a majority of them did in at least the first 3 rounds of the drafts I looked at between '08 to '12). Had he hit on all of his picks? No, but who does? Had he hit on all of his o-lineman picks? Hardly, but again, who does? The man has one 2 championships during his tenure here... how many other GMs in the league can say that? Maybe Belichick (who everyone thinks is pretty much the GM up there as well as the HC)?
Posters are looking for a scapegoat for our recent bad performances and rightfully so. I think the new, for lack of a better term more 'player-friendly' systems on both offense and defense will ultimately allow us to see the talent this team has more clearly.
Quote:
1) Requires above average intelligence and continuity between receiver and QB
2) Rapport / Longevity in the system is more important
3) Puts a greater emphasis on a strong OL given the amount of time needed to let the play develop on many of the plays
4) With the size/strength/speed / injuries / free agency and churn in the game today
5) doe to the complexity of the O it lends itself to more interceptions especially when 1) and 2) and 3) aren't working well
It's just harder to run the system effectively as the game goes on. But when it's on with the talent and experience it needs, it's awesome.
Yes, obviously because rookie Steve Smith, UFA Cruz, and that rocket scientist Burress all had such trouble picking it up.
Archie has had a much better career running interference for his boys than he had as a qb.
Make the bad man stop already
There were just too many moving parts. My biggest problem with his system was that when there was a mistake or miscommunication, there was no room for error. Mistakes didn't result in incompletions, they resulted in interceptions. How many times did Eli throw to a spot where he thought his receiver would be only to see it fall directly into a safety's lap?
For years I have been begging for a more QB friendly offense. Considering Manning just had arguably his best year, I would say it was the right call to move on from Gilbride.
Quote:
I think Reese gets way too bad a rap here . No GM hits on every move. There are 100's of decisions/moves an NFL GM makes in a given season. I think Reese has nailed a bunch and his percentage was much better than Accorsi (alot of great measurable/ weak football players drafted way too high) and ranks right with the top GMs in the game currently. Our drafts started going down when he became a GM perhaps because he couldn't focus on the evaluation of the lower round picks as much as before (and truthfully Im not sold on Ross).
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine is that the Coughlin's hire was responsible for winning the two SBs not Reese. Coughlin would have never let the OL slip like it did, with a drop back franchise QB like ELi, if he was selecting who was to be drafted or acquired.
TMS - you should know by now that I respect your opinion greatly. On this we just happen to disagree. It's not like Reese is picking these players with no input from Coughlin. Matter of fact, at the Combine it's Coughlin you see at the finish line... in the same seat... with his stop watch. So I disagree that 'Coughlin would never let the OL slip like it did' because I'm sure he has a great deal of input in the selection process. It's not like Reese is telling him "Hey... I pick em... you make sure you get whoever I pick ready!".
Sections331 - Every single draft mag I read had him going in the first round, if not early second. I freely admit I don't watch much college football so I depend on my info from the various draft mags (I usually get no less than 3 of them a year) and what guys like Sy'56 say here. So if it was a 'reach' to you, you're the only one who seems to think so. Not so much disagree with you as just telling you what I'd been reading about the guy before that particular draft.
My opinion is that Reese made the selectiosn he did with input about the state of the roster from Coughlin. This isn't the Wig and Fassel where the Wig famously asked the OL coach Mouse if he preferred bargin basement pickups or the guys already on the roster for the oline since that's all he was going to get. In my opinion, there is no credible evidence that the Reese and Coughlin partnership is as one sided as you just presented
Sometimes when I see people list who was a reach without explaining why they were reaches I get suspicious. It always seems like whoever didn't work out was a reach.
What's so similar between Beckum and Barden? One was a small school prospect with ridiculous production while the other was a big school prospect who had 75 catches in his junior year when he was a semifinalist for the John Mackley (Best TE) award.
Clint Sintim the reach lead the NCAA in sacks his senior year. He had better size and stats than some of the olb/de tweeners currently being considered at the top of the draft plus the giants had a connection to his college head coach who gave them positive reviews. Hell, Sintime measurances match up to Justin Tucks expect for being two inches shorter. Again, why was he a reach? What information available beforehand indicated that he should have been drafted later?
So how are they both reaches if they have such a different background?
He's at the combine every year. It's not a coincidence that some of the jacksonville personnel strengths are suddenly New York Giants personnel strengths when they were not before 2004.
Cruz sat out an entire year. With a minor injury.
Smith was unleashed with like 5 games left in the season.
And Plax was a freak and maybe the best WR the giants have had in along time pre Beckum.
Get a clue...
Reese has signed 29 o-lineman since the 2011 season (sorry but couldn't find a good link to a list earlier than that so I had to use Eric's FA tracker... link below). That includes the signings of ALL kinds of FA's (Unrestricted, Restricted, returning FAs and those that were new to the team). 29 o-lineman in a 3 year span. I'd say he spent plenty of resources on trying to fix the o-line. Now... not all of his moves worked... but aqain, he's not perfect and he's not done much better or worse than 98% of the GMs currently in the league in that respect (2 shiny SB trophies can attest to that).
Reese gets no more and no less of a pass than Ross and Coughlin. Again, I doubt that Reese has been making these moves without input from his HC.
New York Giants FAs since 2011 - ( New Window )
2) Rapport / Longevity in the system is more important
3) Puts a greater emphasis on a strong OL given the amount of time needed to let the play develop on many of the plays
4) With the size/strength/speed / injuries / free agency and churn in the game today
5) doe to the complexity of the O it lends itself to more interceptions especially when 1) and 2) and 3) aren't working well
It's just harder to run the system effectively as the game goes on. But when it's on with the talent and experience it needs, it's awesome.
Agree completely. And that's why when the Giants' O was good under Gilbride, it was damn near unstoppable. But when it was bad, it looked like the biggest joke in the leageu.
Bullshit. That never happens on this site...
He's at the combine every year. It's not a coincidence that some of the jacksonville personnel strengths are suddenly New York Giants personnel strengths when they were not before 2004.
It is amazing that even after two Super Bowl wins he still doesn't get the credit he truly deserves.