| "We were walking off of the field after the game, and it was Justin Tuck, as we walked through the end zone of Giants Stadium, he said, 'Coach, if we get the chance to play those guys again, let us just line up our top four guys and let us get after Brady,' " Spagnuolo recalled. "In other words, [the defensive linemen] were convinced at that point, even though it was a close game, the score was very high, both teams played pretty good, they just felt like they had a lot of confidence and they could move that offensive line and put some pressure on Brady, and that helped going forward a month later when we played them in the Super Bowl." |
we also copied romeo crennel's CLE's gameplan from earlier that year
It doesn't always have to be about these mega-complex schemes that the average person just can't understand.
That's what I recall.
I remember Tuck waiving the Pats on from the DT position the very first series of that regular season finale with Osi and Strahan at the ends.
Just because the average fan doesn't understand it, doesn't mean it's an mega-complex scheme. To most people auto mechanics is mega-complex but to the guys who make their living fixing cars, gaining an understanding of the car's inner workings is a necessity.
So fans should we be calling for the manufacturers to "simplified" the automobile schemes
Sadly, you can say the same for many great Giant players. Too many.
I don't know, Spags dialed up some sweet looks. I'll always remember that play where Mitchell feigned dropping into coverage, and the middle of that Pats line parted like the red sea.
Spags had a great first run here. Looking forward to more of the same.
Quote:
It doesn't always have to be about these mega-complex schemes that the average person just can't understand.
Just because the average fan doesn't understand it, doesn't mean it's an mega-complex scheme. To most people auto mechanics is mega-complex but to the guys who make their living fixing cars, gaining an understanding of the car's inner workings is a necessity.
So fans should we be calling for the manufacturers to "simplified" the automobile schemes
That wasn't really what I was getting at.
My point was more that even in football terms, I don't think we did anything overly complex or exotic in either Super Bowl.
I think both games were games where the horses up front won their battles, put licks on Brady and made him start ducking. Sometimes it can just be about winning the 1 on 1 battles rather than the chess match.
Quote:
It doesn't always have to be about these mega-complex schemes that the average person just can't understand.
Just because the average fan doesn't understand it, doesn't mean it's an mega-complex scheme. To most people auto mechanics is mega-complex but to the guys who make their living fixing cars, gaining an understanding of the car's inner workings is a necessity.
So fans should we be calling for the manufacturers to "simplified" the automobile schemes
They talked about different plays specifically and points in the game where each guy clearly outfoxed the other, but as we know, Spags came out on top.
Obviously they aren't proven to the level of the 07 triumvirate, especially Odighizuwa, but it's nice to feel that vibe again.
+ Big Hank swallowing fools in the center of the line.
Spag's recollection of Tuck's statement seems to reinforce that memory as well.
The credit goes as much to the scheme as to the players if that is really the case, imo.
I also think he's very overrated on this board and that people are expecting an awful lot of him.
Agree with arc in that I think the Pats just couldn't handle our pass rush from the front 4.
I also think he's very overrated on this board and that people are expecting an awful lot of him.
Arc that is a very fair assessment. I do think that you are underrating Spags a bit. Sure he had a phenomenal DL to work with especially at DE but his best coaching job in 07 was during the Dallas game. Remember that Aaron Ross was injured in the first half and didn't return. The Giants were left with Webster, McQuarters, and UDFA rookie Geoffrey Pope at CB. Spags made adjustments at half-time and completely shut down the high powered Dallas offense.
Quote:
I don't think either DC "figured" much out as much as they both got tremendous pushes from their front 4.
I don't know, Spags dialed up some sweet looks. I'll always remember that play where Mitchell feigned dropping into coverage, and the middle of that Pats line parted like the red sea.
This is the play I think of whenever I hear Spags name. That was such a well designed play. And that's what I'm expecting/hoping he brings back to this D.
Anyway, like I said. I think Spagnuolo is a good defensive coach. I think we'll be better on that side of the ball this year but I also think a lot of posters are expecting him to do a lot more than he may be able to do with the personnel he's looking at. If being an average-ish defense is improvement enough for the masses in '15, I suspect they'll be placated but those expecting Spagnuolo to turn this into a top 10 defense are probably going to be disappointed.
But those guys were playing next to Aaron Ross, Corey Webster, Gilbril Wilson who did most of the heavy lifting for the secondary leaving those guys to be the role players they were best suited for. Those guys also benefited from a stronger linebacker group than the 2011 team.
Spagnuolo defense rose to the occasion but he wasn't a chess master playing with only a few pawns as if sometimes implied. He had the full set available to him and he used it well.
Which made Dallas' underused of their second back Julius Jones all the more questionable. He only got three carries that game after averaging about 10 carries a game. Barber probably doesn't wear down as much if Jones gotten a normal number of carries
Anyway, like I said. I think Spagnuolo is a good defensive coach. I think we'll be better on that side of the ball this year but I also think a lot of posters are expecting him to do a lot more than he may be able to do with the personnel he's looking at. If being an average-ish defense is improvement enough for the masses in '15, I suspect they'll be placated but those expecting Spagnuolo to turn this into a top 10 defense are probably going to be disappointed.
Good point on Dallas getting away from their running game. It is reminiscent of the Bills doing the same against the Giants in the Super Bowl. What you may not realize is how Spagnuolo is able to get more out of so called mediocre talent, of which many posters have repeatedly commented on.
The reason the Giants WILL have a top 10 Defense is because of the marked improvement of their offense.
Spag's recollection of Tuck's statement seems to reinforce that memory as well.
The credit goes as much to the scheme as to the players if that is really the case, imo.
Funny you mentioned this. I hear the sports radio hosts down here in Washington talking about how they hope the new DC will implement NASCAR packages and such. I thought it was funny they stole that from us. Although I don't know if we truly did engineer the package or not.
One of my favorite Spag's coaching decisions was the 2008 Steelers game where he started using five d-linemen lined up on against the Steelers o-line. They just kicked Big Ben's ass with that. That was one of the more satisfying wins in the regular season under Coughlin. Just physical domination in the second half. Kenny Phillips almost killed one of the Steeler running backs on a wheel route.
Super Bowl 46, though, the Giants held the ball for 14 minutes more than the Patriots and actually ran the ball better than they had in 42. Without a deep threat for Brady and with the poor field position the Pats had all game, it's no wonder they didn't find the end zone that often.
Good point on Dallas getting away from their running game. It is reminiscent of the Bills doing the same against the Giants in the Super Bowl. What you may not realize is how Spagnuolo is able to get more out of so called mediocre talent, of which many posters have repeatedly commented on.
The reason the Giants WILL have a top 10 Defense is because of the marked improvement of their offense. [/quote]
Two Points. First, if my count is correct, Buffalo only had the ball for a total of 7 minutes in the second half and Thurman had 6 carries for 78 yards. It wasn't a matter of Buffalo abandoning the run but rather NYG having a total time of possession advantage of 40:33 to Buffalo 19:27.
See following link for the Superbowl Boxscore http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199101270buf.htm
Second, Spag ability to get more out of mediocre talent was not clearly demonstrated outside of New York. His best defense after leaving the Giants was his second year in St. Louis where they finished 19th against yardage wise and 12th against points wise. See Link below.
Link - ( New Window )
And if you look at the Giants strategy, they didn't emphasize power rushes in this game. They saw it as a track meet. They knew they were going to play fast on the AZ track. The rush schemes were designed to challenge the OL with lots of lateral movement, particularly on the inside by guys who were much quicker than they had been facing all year.
The choice to put Tuck in front of Logan Mankins instead of Robbins or Cofield was a strategic one, so when he was able to drive past him on the inside on the play following the Kawika Mitchell blitz, yes, it was an athlete out there making the play and simply being the better athlete and making the better play, but the credit for him being on the field goes entirely to Spags.
I also think that not enough credit is given to Spags by some here in the analysis of the Dallas game. Some here think that Dallas and Romo just abandoned the run game for some unknown reason. Remember that these games are played out like chess matches. There is a reason that Dallas thought their best opportunity to win the game was to go to the pass, and it wasn't because they had given up on Barber/Jones. It was because the looks Spags dialed up made them think the best opportunities to win were through the air. This is what Spags wanted them to think - and they took the bait.
C'mon, give Spags some credit for that stuff. Don't just assume Dallas got stupid. That's really unfair to our defensive squad.
And if you look at the Giants strategy, they didn't emphasize power rushes in this game. They saw it as a track meet. They knew they were going to play fast on the AZ track. The rush schemes were designed to challenge the OL with lots of lateral movement, particularly on the inside by guys who were much quicker than they had been facing all year.
The choice to put Tuck in front of Logan Mankins instead of Robbins or Cofield was a strategic one, so when he was able to drive past him on the inside on the play following the Kawika Mitchell blitz, yes, it was an athlete out there making the play and simply being the better athlete and making the better play, but the credit for him being on the field goes entirely to Spags.
I also think that not enough credit is given to Spags by some here in the analysis of the Dallas game. Some here think that Dallas and Romo just abandoned the run game for some unknown reason. Remember that these games are played out like chess matches. There is a reason that Dallas thought their best opportunity to win the game was to go to the pass, and it wasn't because they had given up on Barber/Jones. It was because the looks Spags dialed up made them think the best opportunities to win were through the air. This is what Spags wanted them to think - and they took the bait.
C'mon, give Spags some credit for that stuff. Don't just assume Dallas got stupid. That's really unfair to our defensive squad.
Dan, in general I agree that what you are saying makes sense. But I do want to point out something. One of the recurring gripes about Perry was "too often he tried to outthink the other guy and all it did was confused our defense instead, blah, blah, blah ." After reading that a dozen times or so, it's refreshing to see someone bring up the chess match aspect of the game as a positive aspect of a good coordinator using his pieces to present openings that aren't there.
But back to that point, perhaps the Giants started stacking the line of scrimmage in the second half and dared Dallas to beat them throwing the ball. With the personnel he had that year, it was a smart response to Dallas's first half success running the ball.
We can go on and on about what a mess the New Orleans situation was (and it certainly was) but shouldn't a DC who is as highly regarded as most seem to feel Spagnuolo is have been able to get just a little more than historically bad out of that defense? Literally no defense in football was worse than his. That year. If a guy is so strong and adept at getting results out of lesser talent, how does that happen?
I just always found it odd how whenever a Fewell defense would play well against a high powered GB offense, it was simply because the front 4 did all the work, but when a Spagnuolo defense did it, it was the brilliance and mastery of the chessmatch behind the scenes and schematic genius.
People seem to always mold these things to fit their agendas.
As usual, I'll just get told that my agenda is to dump on Spagnuolo but the truth of the matter is, I'll probably be the guy defending Spags halfway through the season when the defense hits a rough patch and half the site does a 180 on him.
What's interesting about success is that when guys get a lot of it early on they often misdiagnose the reasons for that success. Why did Spags have success here and elsewhere? Perhaps he focused on the wrong things elsewhere. Perhaps he overvalued his scheme and player execution and undervalued player buy-in and communication. Who knows.
My guess is that he probably learned as much from failing after leaving here as he did by succeeding when he was here. I'm hoping he can bring what he's learned here, and maximize what I view are some of his personal strengths (communication and inspiration), and find success. I think it's possible but don't disagree that we might suck for a while, and maybe forever under him.
Good point on Dallas getting away from their running game. It is reminiscent of the Bills doing the same against the Giants in the Super Bowl. What you may not realize is how Spagnuolo is able to get more out of so called mediocre talent, of which many posters have repeatedly commented on.
The reason the Giants WILL have a top 10 Defense is because of the marked improvement of their offense.
Two Points. First, if my count is correct, Buffalo only had the ball for a total of 7 minutes in the second half and Thurman had 6 carries for 78 yards. It wasn't a matter of Buffalo abandoning the run but rather NYG having a total time of possession advantage of 40:33 to Buffalo 19:27.
See following link for the Superbowl Boxscore http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199101270buf.htm
Second, Spag ability to get more out of mediocre talent was not clearly demonstrated outside of New York. His best defense after leaving the Giants was his second year in St. Louis where they finished 19th against yardage wise and 12th against points wise. See Link below.
Link - ( New Window ) [/quote]
Thurman Thomas averaged 13 ypc in the second half ? WOW. Considering QB Jim Kelly called all his own plays and Thomas is the only player in NFL history to lead the league in total yard from scrimmage for 4 consecutive seasons, I understand why they threw the ball more than run it, but considering the facts it appears they shouldn't have.
Regarding Spags, I only studied what he did here in NY. He will do fine for the reason I stated.
But back to that point, perhaps the Giants started stacking the line of scrimmage in the second half and dared Dallas to beat them throwing the ball. With the personnel he had that year, it was a smart response to Dallas's first half success running the ball. [/quote]
I disagree with that being the smart response. Remember that the Giants had basically nobody in the secondary that day. They pulled Geoff Pope off the practice squad because of injuries. Aaron Ross went down with a bad shoulder during the game. A lot of coordinators probably would have played more cautiously to avoid getting burned through the air in that situation.
Behre pretty much said the same thing already, lel.
That's the bottom line for me. I'd rather them beat us by beating our blitz and press coverage, than have them beating us by dinking and dunking effortlessly and uncontested down the field and hoping for a turnover or being able to stop them for a FG.
Perry's stretch run to the Sueprbowl was great, I appreciate it. But I do not like the way he calls defense, and the miscommunication issues were insane.
Sorry.
New Orleans was a no-win situation.
He's a teacher. That's his strength and I think he'll do fine.
Fewell was not a very good teacher. He's smart enough and well versed enough in defensive Xs and Os, but he struggles teaching his concepts. You've got to wonder if he would have been more successful as a HC than as a coordinator.
If he's got the horses, he'll make it work. I just don't expect him to be a magician if he doesn't. I feel like a lot of BBI just expects that he can take sub par talent and scheme it into good defense and I'm not particularly confident that will be the case.
That's the bottom line for me. I'd rather them beat us by beating our blitz and press coverage, than have them beating us by dinking and dunking effortlessly and uncontested down the field and hoping for a turnover or being able to stop them for a FG.
By Bill Burt
It was Sunday, Dec. 30, about 10 hours after the New England Patriots officially made history.
The Patriots defeated the New York Giants, 38-35, in one of the most entertaining regular-season games of the year, thus being the first team ever to go unbeaten 16-0.
The Patriots were given the day off with their impending bye week ahead of them.
With a wild card game at Tampa Bay just seven days away, Giants coaches had a little bounce to their step as they were gathered in the conference room at the Meadowlands.
But before they talked about Tampa Bay, the coaches discussed the Patriots.
"We always do that the morning after a game," said Giants defensive backs coach Peter Giunta, a Salem, Mass., native. "Tom (Coughlin) likes to talk about the team we just played and what we would do differently if we played them again.
"And to be honest, we didn't even think about playing the Patriots again (in the Super Bowl) at that point," said Giunta. "But first, we critiqued the Patriots game and then it was on to Tampa."
On the defensive side of the ball, four things had to change.
"One, we had to find ways to get more pressure on Brady. That was No. 1," recalled Giunta (pronounced JUN-ta). "Two, we couldn't give up the big plays, especially to (Randy) Moss. He killed us. Three, we did an OK job on their screen passes, but we would have to be more disciplined in defending it because that is as vital to their offense as the long passes to Moss are. And four, limit the gap running plays, where the Patriots pull their offensive linemen. (Laurence) Maroney didn't have a big game against, but a few of his runs hurt us."
After that short — and from what we've now learned productive — meeting, "The Greatest Show on Turf" wasn't anywhere to be found the Giants' radar. Who were? Tampa Bay, Dallas and then Green Bay, all on the road.
Bills game is key
While there was momentum from the season finale against the Patriots, Giunta says it started the week before against the Bills.
"We were losing (21-17) heading into the fourth quarter," said Giunta, whose Giants team was still, technically, fighting for a playoff berth. "And then we came back. We had two defensive touchdowns (in the fourth quarter). It was a great feeling after that game."
The morning after beating the Packers in overtime to earn a Super Bowl berth, the Giants went back to their notes from the New England game on Dec. 30.
"We played the Packers again a second time, but the problem back then was we played them on Week 2 and by the time the NFC championship came around, they were a different team," said Giunta. "The Patriots were different. We had just played them. And they were the same team. They were still the best team in the league. Trust me, we always looked at them that way."
But the one difference, said Giunta, was the fact that Coughlin went out of his way to break down the job at hand.
"He said, 'We have to win one game, that's it,' " said Giunta. "He didn't want us to get caught up in the 18-and-0 thing. He did a great job at getting everyone thinking that way."
Defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo and rest of the defensive coaches went into overdrive.
They went through all of the other tapes from 2007 and realized one method of defending the Patriots didn't work.
"The Jaguars basically rushed three guys the entire game and put the extra defenders in coverage," said Giunta. "As I think everyone saw, it didn't work. Tom Brady had all the time in the world. And every pass he threw was almost perfect. We realized that was not going to be us."
Eagles', Ravens' blueprint
One game that particularly caught the interest of the Giants coaches was not the game everyone probably would have predicted, like Philadelphia or Baltimore.
It was the Patriots game against the Cleveland Browns, on Oct. 7.
The Patriots won, 34-17, which seemed to fit in with all their previous blowout wins the first two months.
But the win was a lot tougher than the stat sheet revealed.
Two of the Patriots touchdowns followed interceptions in Browns territory (34- and 25-yard lines) and another came on a fourth quarter interception return (Randall Gay) for a touchdown.
And while Brady had a very good quarterback rating, 105.7, he completed only 22 of 38 passes for 57.5 percent, his lowest until the Ravens game eight weeks later.
"We learned the most from watching this game. Romeo knew the (Patriots) group," he said of Cleveland head coach Romeo Crennel, the former Patriots defensive coordinator. "The Browns played a two-deep (safety) scheme, mixing them up on third down, especially. Their players always put their hands on receivers at the line of scrimmage, especially on third down. It was the best we saw.
"Romeo didn't want to get beat giving up the deep pass. It was similar to what you saw the Eagles and Ravens do," said Giunta. "But the Browns did it better."
The Browns were the first team that decided Moss, who had averaged 7.8 receptions for 126.3 yards and 1.8 TDs the first four games, was not going to beat them.
Moss finished the Cleveland game with three catches for 46 yards and no scores.
"They also got a little pressure on Brady," said Giunta. "It was really the game that showed us the most."
He really means the second most, because the Giants-Pats game to end the regular season was their barometer, and specifically those notes.
And the defensive game plan was born.
Essential to pressure Brady
"We said No. 1 was Brady had to be kept off-balance," said Giunta. "He is the best quarterback I've ever seen in terms of the total package. He is so patient. He will hold the ball until the last moment. If you give him time to throw, he will make the completion. That was one conclusion we came to. To have a chance we had to pressure Brady."
Another conclusion, courtesy of the Browns, was mugging the Patriots wideouts at all costs.
"Even if we were playing a zone, which we did a lot, we wanted to hit them at the line of scrimmage," said Giunta. "We didn't want any easy throws. Even if they were completed, we were going to hit them."
The other key ingredient to slowing down the most explosive offensive in NFL history (36.8 points a game in the regular season) was winning the line of scrimmage.
"Their offensive line is very, very good," said Giunta. "They not only protected Brady better than anything we had seen, but they were very good at run blocking, too."
Giunta said Media Day on Tuesday was sort of an epiphany for the Giants defensive linemen. They realized something when they walked across the University of Phoenix Stadium field, which was natural grass, for the team picture.
"We realized how fast a track the field was," said Giunta. "I know the Patriots probably thought the same thing, with their team speed on offense, but we felt that the strength of our defensive line was speed and quickness. We were thrilled when we saw the field. We thought it would benefit our rushers on Brady."
Last but not least was the Patriots' running game, which had been on a roll entering the Super Bowl, with Maroney rushing for 550 yards and six touchdowns in the last five games.
The one glitch in those stats was the 19 rushes for 46 yards against the Giants.
"This was on our linebackers," said Giunta. "And Antonio Pierce is the key man here. He takes a lot of pride on run defense. He is also very good at recognizing formations."
Giunta said he wasn't privy to all the details of the offensive game plan other than the basics were ball control (running and short to intermediate passes), no turnovers and move the clock.
"We were going to be conservative on offense," said Giunta. "Tom (Coughlin) and the offensive coaches figured the key was not turning the ball over. But they also figured they could move the ball on the Patriots defense. That meant the clock would be moving, too. ... The bottom line was we didn't want to get into a high-scoring game with them. Their offense is too good."
The plan was to defend the Patriots, on most plays, with four down linemen, five underneath defenders (three linebackers and two cornerbacks) and two deep safeties.
All eyes on Brady
It was the same defense the Ravens used against the Patriots. But the Giants were going to make one adjustment.
"The five underneath guys can't all play with their backs to Brady, which is what the Ravens did," said Giunta. "Because there were a couple of times, one I believe was a fourth-and-6, and Brady took off for a first down because nobody was looking. I realize he's not a runner, but he will run if nobody is paying attention to him."
The game could not have worked out any better, particularly on defense.
The Giants offense did their part to start the game, taking 9:59 off the clock. While they didn't score a touchdown, a field goal and 10 minutes was almost better than seven points.
The Patriots scored a touchdown on their first drive, but it took one play into the second quarter and Brady was knocked down four times on the drive.
"They took the lead but we realized we could get pressure on Brady," said Giunta. "It gave us confidence."
The confidence picked up a notch through halftime. Brady had been sacked three times and knocked down eight times. And Maroney had only 10 yards in eight rushes.
"We thought if we could keep Maroney in check, and our line could pressure Brady, we could make the Patriots one-dimensional," said Giunta. "That's where Antonio (Pierce) came in. The Patriots run the ball, most of the time, when Brady is under center. Well, Antonio makes those calls. I think he was right on every single run."
The pressure continued in the third quarter. Again, there was no scoring as the Giants and Patriots were in the midst of the lowest scoring Super Bowl ever through three quarters, a total of 10 points.
The highlight for the Giants defense was the first drive of the second half. The Patriots ate up 8:17, only to be stopped on a strange 4th-and-13 play.
"They have so much confidence in Brady that that didn't surprise me," said Giunta of the controversial decision to eschew a 48-yard field goal try. "We called a fake, weak corner blitz and spun the deep coverage to that side. Brady saw the hot read and thought he was blitzing and went that way. But we rolled over our safeties on that side and dropped the safety back. There was nobody open."
The first play of the fourth quarter was when the Giants' "survival" tactics turned into going for the jugular. Eli Manning hit tight end Kevin Boss for 45 yards to the Patriots' 35. Five plays later, Manning to David Tyree on a 5-yard pass, gave the Giants the lead, again, at 10-7.
Two drives later, the Patriots answered as only these Patriots could.
With 7:54 remaining in the game and the Pats on their own 20, Brady got some blocking and the Patriots were back.
"That's why they are so great. They made some adjustments, got Brady a little time, and he went back to picking his spots and waiting patiently," said Giunta.
The Patriots finally scored with 2:42 left with Brady hitting Moss for the go-ahead score.
"We were planning on doubling Moss but (Wes) Welker came across in motion and got the double team instead. It was a great call by the Patriots," said Giunta. "Moss is impossible to cover one on one."
The Giants went back to their miraculous ways with Manning working his magic like never before. The eventual game-winner, to Plaxico Burress with 35 seconds left, gave New York a 17-14 lead.
The play of the game, other than the Manning-to-Tyree miracle pass and catch, was the second-to-last play of the game.
On third down, after Brady had been sacked by rookie lineman Jay Alford, the Patriots quarterback rolled to his right, waiting a few seconds, before throwing a bomb to Moss.
Webster an unsung hero
"It was a great call by the Patriots," said Giunta. "He moved over to his right and had to throw the ball 70 yards in the air. Moss just took off. If Corey Webster doesn't run with Moss, stride-for-stride, then Moss probably catches it, scores a touchdown and the Patriots win.
"But Corey got a hand on the ball. People thought the game was over before that play, but if Corey doesn't make that play, the Patriots probably win. I have seen that play many times now and it was incredible."
The last play of the game was another failed bomb, this one hitting the ground in front of where Giunta was on the sidelines.
"I can honestly say it was the greatest sporting event I was ever a part of ," said Giunta. "My view of the Patriots has not changed. They really are one of the greatest teams, and definitely one of the greatest offenses ever in the NFL. And Tom Brady is the best. He really is the best.
"But for one game, we beat them."
You can e-mail Bill Burt at bburt@eagletribune.com. Check out his blog, "Burt Talks Sports," at www.eagletribune.com.
:::::::::::::::::#
Peter Giunta's coaching resume
Years%Team%Position
1978-1980%Swampscott High%assistant
1981-1983%Penn State%tight ends
1984-1985%Brown%tight ends/wide receivers
1986-1987%Brown%offensive coordinator
1988-1990%Lehigh%tight ends/wide receivers
1991-1994%Philadelphia Eagles%defensive backs
1995-1996%N.Y. Jets%defensive backs
1997%St. Louis Rams%defensive backs
1998-2000%St. Louis Rams%assistant head coach/defensive coordinator
2001-2005%Kansas City Chiefs%defensive backs
2006-present%N.Y. Giants%defensive backs
::::::::::::::::::::
The Giunta file
Born: Aug. 11, 1956
High school: St. John's Prep ('74)
College: Northeastern University ('78)
Super Bowl rings: 2 (Giants XLII, St. Louis XXXIV)
Family: Wife, Cindy; children, Christina, John and D.J.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::#
Giunta (before the game) on slowing down Randy Moss
"Wow. That's quite a task, isn't it? I don't think you can go into a game thinking you will shut him down. He's the best in the league. But we can try to make him earn every catch and every yard he gets. I know Randy. When I was with the Chiefs we practiced with the Vikings at training camp every year. I've seen him a lot. You have to double him by rolling over the safety. We just have to remain patient because Tom Brady is looking for that one mistake you make and then, gone, to Moss. We have to be perfect in the defensive backfield. It's that simple."
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Everything else aside, I prefer Spags philosophy of attacking over Fewell's of giving up yards underneath between the 20's. I'm tired up guys being wide open on 3rd and 5.
That's the bottom line for me. I'd rather them beat us by beating our blitz and press coverage, than have them beating us by dinking and dunking effortlessly and uncontested down the field and hoping for a turnover or being able to stop them for a FG.
This is pretty much how I see it. If the Giants score with 7 minutes left on the clock, under Fewell the other team was driving down the field to take the lead with 30 seconds left. Live and die by bringing pressure here. If they score because they beat the pressure, that is fine. The ball is back in Eli's hands with time on the clock. I don't want Eli taking the field with 25 seconds left and no timeouts at the Giants' 15 yard line.
This wasn't always the case, though.. we ended multiple games with a lead late in a game and the defense on the field in 2011 especially. They either forced a turnover on downs or just a turnover to win it. We beat Buffalo, Arizona and Miami that way in the regular season that year.
Thanks JB. Yeah that's the article. Great insight on how we went about game planning and what film helped us.
I remember this and it was Pure Gold !!!
Quote:
In comment 12287735 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Everything else aside, I prefer Spags philosophy of attacking over Fewell's of giving up yards underneath between the 20's. I'm tired up guys being wide open on 3rd and 5.
That's the bottom line for me. I'd rather them beat us by beating our blitz and press coverage, than have them beating us by dinking and dunking effortlessly and uncontested down the field and hoping for a turnover or being able to stop them for a FG.
This is pretty much how I see it. If the Giants score with 7 minutes left on the clock, under Fewell the other team was driving down the field to take the lead with 30 seconds left. Live and die by bringing pressure here. If they score because they beat the pressure, that is fine. The ball is back in Eli's hands with time on the clock. I don't want Eli taking the field with 25 seconds left and no timeouts at the Giants' 15 yard line.
This wasn't always the case, though.. we ended multiple games with a lead late in a game and the defense on the field in 2011 especially. They either forced a turnover on downs or just a turnover to win it. We beat Buffalo, Arizona and Miami that way in the regular season that year.
I would have sent heavy pressure on most of that drive because either you force a turnover or they score fast and you get the ball back. But it would have been nice if someone could have just beaten their man 1 on 1 and made a play at some point.
Anyway. It's over and done. Last season is last season.
But we didn't. We played that way the whole way down the field. And that pretty much sums it up for me.
Time to move forward and hope for the best.