in Big D's last 2 drives call pressures, not so much to sack or even hurry Romo, but, rather, to force receivers to stay in and block. Specifically , Witten & Dunbar, which would have happened had the Giants rushed 6 or 7. Bryant is out of the game. Your two best corners are playing. First, a morbid recounting of the drives:
1st & 10 D24. Romo to Witten 15 yds D39
1st & 10 D39. Romo to Williams 16 yds G45
1st & 10 G45 Romo to Beasley 7 yds G38
2nd & 03 G38 Romo to Williams 17 yds G21
1st. & 10 G21 Romo-Beasley 16 yds G01
1st & goal G01 Romo- Witten TD
6 plays 76 yards . Not one successful defensive play in the drive.
Winning Drive:
1st & 10 D28. Romo to Dunbar 24 yards G48
1st & 10 G48 Romo to Dunbar 16 yards G32
1st & 10 G32 Romo to Witten 13 yards G 19
1st & 10 G19 Romo INC to Beasley
2nd & 10 G19 Romo to Williams 8 yds G11
3rd & 02 G11 Romo to Witten TD
12 plays 148 yards 2 TDs Only 1 successful defensive play.
Observations. Obviously the defense had done a good job stealing the ball until this point in the game. This was consistent with what we wrote this summer. Expect to give up a ton of yardage. Stop long drives as the field shortens. Make them settle for 3. Tackle well. Be opportunistic, especially late in the game. Well until the last two drives the plan was working.
The idea that the defense died has a smidgeon of merit for the first fourth-quarter TD. However on the second, sorry, no way. The Giants defense had been on the sidelines for quite a bit. So why didn't the mad scientist come up with something in the laboratory. Why didn't he draw up plays in the imaginary dirt with his finger? Just wondering.
Keep laying that groundwork, baby. You might just get some traction.
The double standard deserves to be checked, to some extent, honestly.
My question is how these guys can run so free. A completion is one thing, they were running wild.
No rush. No adjustment.
Giants need a reliable TE in the worst way.
There were things people harped on all offseason about the difference Spags would make and they were rooted in 3 arguments for the most part...
1, he would be more aggressive and if we were going to lose, we would "go down swinging" and not just sit back in coverage and get picked apart.
The reality? Romo marched right down the field while we did exactly that. We sat back, rushed no one and got chunks of yardage ripped off against us in a matter of seconds.
2, he would be more "creative" in his pressure packages and be better at "disguising" his blitzes
The reality? Tony Romo came to the line, got us to show our hand on nearly every pass play, adjusted his protection accordingly and went virtually untouched. Barely any blitz was remotely successful and Romo could have put a recliner behind Fredrick and completed 9 of every 10 passes in his sleep.
3, one of his calling cards was how great of a teacher he was. The main difference would be how he made adjustments and didn't let the offense "dictate" to the defense once the chess match was underway.
The reality? On Dallas' last two drives, both of which had significant amounts of time prior for adjustments of any sort to be made, the defense looked lost, shell shocked and completely unprepared for what they threw at us and allowed them to score two of the most effortless TD's you'll ever see.
I'll be holding out hope for improvement and realize it'll be a work in progress but the Week 1 report card is certainly not a good one.
I'm not saying he's not a TC Apologist Tier 1, because it's well known he is, but in this case, I get at least part of the point beyond that.
Somehow there's all the excuses in the world for Spags, even praise filtering through, but the same exact type of performances used to routinely leave Fewell a piñata. Why exactly is that?
Maybe that is the silver lining in all this and it will help give them enough time to and breathing room to better gel into his system.
2)This was his first game. In 2007, the defense looked terrible the first two weeks, too, and that was with a much more talented crew. Fewell had been on the job for years.
3) To me, there's less talent on the field right now than I can remember, ever, on a Giants defense. Not to say that Fewell didn't deal with lacking talent either, but our safeties are a rookie and two journeymen retreads. The DL is the worst Giants DL I've ever seen. The LBs still suck, with an undersized, undrafted rookie free agent starting at MLB for the injured Beason.
It's just amusing to me how the "bend but don't break" philosophy is being lauded now and while it was a sacrilegious term as recently as last year.
1. They had 3 TOs - scored 7 points directly, led to 10 points indirectly (and would have been more if the O wasn't complete shit).
2. They managed to hold the Dallas O to 27 points - which, even without the TOs or points is a pretty major accomplishment, especially when you lose the TOP battle 2:1.
This one is on the O and the fucking boneheads that thought it was a bad idea to score a go-ahead TD.
The Giants' D was expected to struggle early this season, and in game 1, it did. And yet it managed to score a TD and set up 10 more points.
Spags inherited far less talent on defense than he did the first time.
Nothing to see here. The D actually did better than expected.
Witten is a strong dude
He won a SB as a DC here... so did Fewell. Fewell also had a couple relatively comparably ranked defenses to Spags' 2008 squad, but there was always some reason claimed for why they weren't actually as good as the numbers suggested, despite his never ever having the defensive talent Spags had his previous years as a Giant.
I wasn't a big PF guy, thought he was a mediocre DC and had no problem letting him go, but the Giants didn't replace him with Rex Ryan or Dick Lebeau or even a Jim Schwartz. There's neglible difference at best in track record quality, spare any nonsense about "much more impressive"
We rushed 3 on the first play. 4 on the 2nd. 4 on the 3rd. 4 on the 4th and 4 on the scoring play to Witten.
So, I'm not sure what you watched that made you think we sent "too much" pressure.
and, you're doing what you always do.
Consistency isn't always a positive trait.
Quote:
Absolving Tom Coughlin of any responsibility for his team's failures. It's the players' fault. It's Jerry Reese's fault. It's Steve Spagnuolo's fault. Good ol' "TC" is just a poor victim in all of this.
and, you're doing what you always do.
Consistency isn't always a positive trait.
The coach is spot on here Greg..:)
prevent defenses only prevent you from winning.
We rushed 3 on the first play. 4 on the 2nd. 4 on the 3rd. 4 on the 4th and 4 on the scoring play to Witten.
So, I'm not sure what you watched that made you think we sent "too much" pressure.
Arc first of all I said the 2nd to last drive not the last drive. The last drive was an unadulterated clusterfuck no matter what they tried. Also I'm not a "bend but don't break" kind of guy but the fact is blitzing did not work all night, so for that game I thought the philosophy of keeping things in front of them and lengthening the drives worked. They undoubtedly were more aggressive on that 2nd to last drive than they had been previously as Dallas drove down the field like they were on fire.
After week one? Steam?
There were things people harped on all offseason about the difference Spags would make and they were rooted in 3 arguments for the most part...
1, he would be more aggressive and if we were going to lose, we would "go down swinging" and not just sit back in coverage and get picked apart.
The reality? Romo marched right down the field while we did exactly that. We sat back, rushed no one and got chunks of yardage ripped off against us in a matter of seconds.
2, he would be more "creative" in his pressure packages and be better at "disguising" his blitzes
The reality? Tony Romo came to the line, got us to show our hand on nearly every pass play, adjusted his protection accordingly and went virtually untouched. Barely any blitz was remotely successful and Romo could have put a recliner behind Fredrick and completed 9 of every 10 passes in his sleep.
3, one of his calling cards was how great of a teacher he was. The main difference would be how he made adjustments and didn't let the offense "dictate" to the defense once the chess match was underway.
The reality? On Dallas' last two drives, both of which had significant amounts of time prior for adjustments of any sort to be made, the defense looked lost, shell shocked and completely unprepared for what they threw at us and allowed them to score two of the most effortless TD's you'll ever see.
I'll be holding out hope for improvement and realize it'll be a work in progress but the Week 1 report card is certainly not a good one.
That's why you saw zone blitzes more than blitzes playing man.
Considering what we had on the field, the defense played anywhere relatively okay most of the game.
The game was lost on the sideline. There's no ifs ands or buts about it. Tom blew it. It appeared he had some help in that from his OC and his QB, but Tom is ultimately responsible.
When you take the job of HC you know the deal. When you lose, it's on you. When you win, the boys played a hell of a game.
It's always been that way and it will always be that way.
Accountability for what? The last two years many of our starters and backups were ravaged with injuries, far more than the league-wide norm..In fact, they were record-setting..And some of those played with one arm (Pugh) for much of the season and another (DRC) played with a severe groin that rendered him, at best, mediocre..
You never acknowledge that as a decent contributing factor to what TC had to work with..If you do, it's in passing and dismissed as , everyone has injuries." Let's see how the Cowboys and Eagles do if they continue to lose key people and their fill-ins..
Quote:
It's certainly a fair question.
There were things people harped on all offseason about the difference Spags would make and they were rooted in 3 arguments for the most part...
1, he would be more aggressive and if we were going to lose, we would "go down swinging" and not just sit back in coverage and get picked apart.
The reality? Romo marched right down the field while we did exactly that. We sat back, rushed no one and got chunks of yardage ripped off against us in a matter of seconds.
2, he would be more "creative" in his pressure packages and be better at "disguising" his blitzes
The reality? Tony Romo came to the line, got us to show our hand on nearly every pass play, adjusted his protection accordingly and went virtually untouched. Barely any blitz was remotely successful and Romo could have put a recliner behind Fredrick and completed 9 of every 10 passes in his sleep.
3, one of his calling cards was how great of a teacher he was. The main difference would be how he made adjustments and didn't let the offense "dictate" to the defense once the chess match was underway.
The reality? On Dallas' last two drives, both of which had significant amounts of time prior for adjustments of any sort to be made, the defense looked lost, shell shocked and completely unprepared for what they threw at us and allowed them to score two of the most effortless TD's you'll ever see.
I'll be holding out hope for improvement and realize it'll be a work in progress but the Week 1 report card is certainly not a good one.
+1. Good post.
Please don't go there, based on ONE game..Thanks
Dallas' 2nd to last drive:
Play 1: Rushed 4, both CB's 10 yards off the LOS at the snap, Witten runs a 10 yard hitch into the soft spot of the zone. The result? 15 yard completion.
Play 2: Rushed 4. DRC lined up 10 yards off Terrance Williams who runs a 10 yard hitch and gains 16 on the play.
Play 3: Romo comes to the line, sees Kennard inch up and changes protections. Kennard and McBride blitz the B gaps with McBride coming from the slot. Unga drops into coverage in the middle. Kennard is chipped by the RB and McBride takes way too long to get there and Beasley runs a quick 5 yard out where Collins closes in and Amukamara gets him OOB after a gain of 7
Play 4: We rush 4 and play man coverage with the DB's up near the LOS on the WR's. Terrence Williams beats DRC down the middle on a deep post for a 21 yard gain
Play 5: Spags brings Merriweather, Kennard and Unga up to the line and sends them. He has Merriweather and Kennard blitz the B gaps where Witten and the RB are set to each side of Romo and both step up to block them. Unga tries to blitz the A gap but gets stonewalled by Fredrick. Ayers and Selvie are slow off the edges and don't get near Romo. McBride is lined up on Beasley playing off in the slot and Beasley runs a flat toward the sideline and gets YAC down to the 1.
Play 6: Out of the shotgun, Witten comes in motion and Landon Collins falls asleep and does not follow him across the formation. Witten runs a quick out and is wide open for a TD.
Terrible drive.
24....a 2 yard pass because Unga couldn't catch him....
13....a 3 yard pass because Unga couldn't catch him..
16.......a 6 yard pass, because Unga and several Giants couldn't tackle....
Yards after the catch killed the Giants on that drive...you keep the guy in front of you and immediately tackle him for short gains....Giants don't have the personnel to do that...
Matt, the truth probably is, we don't know what our D will do this year..We really don't beyond speculation..
As for Spags, even those who were joyous about his return conceded that it would take several games pr so, for him to make whatever handprint on his D that he's going to make..
We're analyzing one friggin' game and already deducing he's not much better(if at all) than Fewell? He may not be, but we don't or won't know that until we're a goodly amount into the season, imo
This is a new system for players and there was going to be a learning curve as well, for both Spags and players.
Really good veterans did not pick it up until late during or after game 3 in '07.
This is a new system for players and there was going to be a learning curve as well, for both Spags and players.
Really good veterans did not pick it up until late during or after game 3 in '07.
So those who think this is going to look a lot better in a few weeks are very likely to be let down. I really don't see it happening. We'll see some small improvements but nothing like we saw in 2007.
i'm just hoping he can exploit bradford hopefully he has his pre draft notes on his weakness's besides his knee lol
So those who think this is going to look a lot better in a few weeks are very likely to be let down. I really don't see it happening. We'll see some small improvements but nothing like we saw in 2007.
I just felt your breakdown(nothing wrong with it) was implicitly harsh on Spags..Look, I was with you on Fewell all along until near the end when I felt, it was probably better all around for PF and the Giants to part ways..
I also wasn't jumping for joy when Spags was tabbed to return..But, if he can throughout the season demonstrate that he can teach our players to communicate better with each other and make proper adjustments, I'd be content..But there will be, as you say, a transition period. There has to be and I think, in fairness, he needs to be cut some slack, imo
In the one and only game this season - the D, as terrible as it was at times, in particular the last two drives - gift wrapped the game. Whether due to Spags, in spite of him, or just dumb luck - they gave us the ball 3 extra times and scored points.
If you want to find ways to deflect blame away from Coughlin fine, but pointing your finger at the D isn't going to make you look credible.
In the one and only game this season - the D, as terrible as it was at times, in particular the last two drives - gift wrapped the game. Whether due to Spags, in spite of him, or just dumb luck - they gave us the ball 3 extra times and scored points.
If you want to find ways to deflect blame away from Coughlin fine, but pointing your finger at the D isn't going to make you look credible.
Who are you addressing?
That second to last TD drive was a joke, like is was the Cowboys against a High School Team. The game losing drive was little better as the Cowboys made it look so easy. And this was without their best skill guy.
There is some truth to the fact that a game where the D gets you +3 in turnovers and scores 14 is not a good game to criticize, but the ease and speed of the final two TD's kinda offsets all the defensive scoring. The summary provided by the OP shows that on both of those the drives the D forced one failed play by the Cowboys. That is an absurd level of ineptitude.
Crazy thing is that once Beckham caught that laser from Eli and fell on the third yard line for the first I was near certain the game was in the bag. I was trying to remember the last time the D actually stole a game for the Giants. Then the bottom fell out.
24....a 2 yard pass because Unga couldn't catch him....
13....a 3 yard pass because Unga couldn't catch him..
16.......a 6 yard pass, because Unga and several Giants couldn't tackle....
Yards after the catch killed the Giants on that drive...you keep the guy in front of you and immediately tackle him for short gains....Giants don't have the personnel to do that...
Don't have personnel to do that? That Football 101, no? Basics?
I actually was impressed by the defensive game plan... but you are not going to get any pressure on QB when all he is throwing is underneath stuff to wide open recievers, backs and TEs...
So those who think this is going to look a lot better in a few weeks are very likely to be let down. I really don't see it happening. We'll see some small improvements but nothing like we saw in 2007.
the fools on this board quickly forget. Those kinds of players are long gone now and played above the coaching and schemes.
2)This was his first game. In 2007, the defense looked terrible the first two weeks, too, and that was with a much more talented crew. Fewell had been on the job for years.
3) To me, there's less talent on the field right now than I can remember, ever, on a Giants defense. Not to say that Fewell didn't deal with lacking talent either, but our safeties are a rookie and two journeymen retreads. The DL is the worst Giants DL I've ever seen. The LBs still suck, with an undersized, undrafted rookie free agent starting at MLB for the injured Beason.
Truth
Don't know Reb.
I'm still concerned about the Mike position and the safeties and I'd guess Spags is more concerned than I am.
He always played quite a bit of zone. It was a myth that he was a cover 1 coach. But, he did put his corners up on the receivers to challenge their release even when in cover 2 and sometimes he brought them up in cover 4. Made it appear pre-snap that we were in man, but he was in zone and squatting his corners.
Always look at the position of the corners in relation to the receiver. If the corner is on an inside shade, it's man coverage. If he's on the outside, it's zone. If they're head up, you have to watch their initial steps to see which way they're trying to force the receiver.
If the safeties are playing halves or even if it's cover 4, are the safeties reads complicated by having more concern about the corner being out of position?
A little more difficult but far more effective in disrupting timing on routes which makes it easier for the safeties to make their reads and give them more time to react.
If the safeties are playing halves or even if it's cover 4, are the safeties reads complicated by having more concern about the corner being out of position?
The safeties are not playing halves in cover 4. They're playing quarters. Corners have the two outside deep quarters, the safeties have the inside two quarters.
Clear?
Both lines performed above BBI and media consensus of 'doomsday is here',
the D was fired up for most of the game.
O did some stuff without Beatty or Cruz and despite some crucial drops and non catches.
I am perfectly willing to just skip the conjecture on the end of the game for now.
'we cannot let them come back on us, stay back, everybody stay back'