Having a body of work of 12 years with Coughlin is more than enough of a sample size to see how he likes to run the team and as head coach, he has the ultimate sign off on what we see on the field.
With McAdoo taking over, I'm curious to see how 3 somewhat specific areas are handled which has been bandied about on BBI for many years:
1) Trick plays- We don't need to turn to school yard here, but Coughlin was beyond conservative in going for a big play via trick plays. Off the top of my head, I think Beckham threw a WR option pass in Tennessee but that really was it. When you consider that Coughlin was under Parcells, who loved to run trick plays from his special teams and go for the throat with a well timed flea flicker, it's strange that we never saw this from TC. I recall Parcells saying years ago that sometimes you run a trick play just to make the other teams worry about something else and force them to add that within their planning. I wonder if McAdoo will add this to the arsenal next year.
2) The QB sneak- TC came right out and said that it's not in his playbook
"To me it's the quarterback," he said of the risk of that kind of push play. "I've felt that way, always have. I don't like them sticking their neck in the pile. I think there are other ways to go about it."
How long has Coughlin had this philosophy?
"I didn't do it with Doug Flutie," he said, harkening back to his days at Boston College. When asked about Mark Brunell in Jacksonville, Coughlin said: "I still didn't do quarterback sneaks, but he did run the ball." |
Now, Simms used to run the QB sneak under Parcells. Tom Brady, going to the Hall of Fame, runs one of the best QB sneaks, usually gaining a few yards when they need inches. Coughlin did actually run one sneak in 2006, using 280 pound Jared Lorenzen so that doesn't really count. Let's see if McAdoo agrees with Coughlin and will let Eli sneak for it, considering how poor the Giants have been in 3rd and short the past few years.
3) Rotation of RB- The Giants running game didn't really start to work until after the season was down the tubes and they made Jennings the work horse. Before that, we got some 4 headed monster thing with Jennings, Williams, Darkwa, and Vereen. To be clear, Vereen should be used as a matchup problem. A receiving back out of the backfield to match up with safeties and LBs. As much as I liked Williams coming out of college, he just has not shown the ability to run the ball consistently in the NFL. Darkwa is a JAG. Jennings, an older RB without as much wear on the tires, was the best guy the Giants had. I think Geoff Schwartz in an AMA on Reddit noted that the Giants running game worked when they settled on Jennings. So the question is, does McAdoo keep going with the RB rotation, or decide to settle on one RB, if it's the hot hand so be it, and stick with that until he stops producing, which was the "old" way of doing things, before running back by committee.
Anything else that I'm missing?
I think the original intention was to have 2 work horses and Vereen situationally. Williams regressed badly and so they had to monitor Jennings/Vereen's carries carefully. Jennings hit his career high in carries anyway and was fortunate to not to have been injured given his career history. I think it's hardly what the coaches wanted.
It seemed that the general consensus was that Eli is not enough of an athletic QB to run the sneak, and then the unavoidable bickering ensued.
I think that notion is BS, I know Eli can do it
Fourth and inches and Lorenzen pushes the pile for four and a half yards.
Off the top of my head I can't think of many momentum/game changing trickery type plays or even attempts.
Under TC a few I recall..
Beckham's throw in Tenn. (you already pointed out)
A few wildcat like direct snaps to Tiki/Ward/Bradshaw
A fake punt with Feagles against Az in 2004
A few end around/reverse attempts (Harris this year and perhaps Manningham or Beckham a few times too)
I appreciated this aspect of Fassel's playcalling. He really got creative getting the ball to Shockey early in his career, we need to do this with Odell.
I am interested to see McAdoo's philosophy on the coin toss. Coughlin always used to take the ball. Just recently, however, he did start deferring to the second half.
Ultimately, all that is microscopic compared to the way we have these players train. How will this program be different than years past? Will they incorporate more technology? Will they keep giving these players breaks or push them harder? Will his program have a positive effect on our team health? I am really intrigued since McAdoo has a degree in this area. It is extremely difficult to win when your players aren't on the field.
To paraphrase: We do what we do because that's what we do.
Hard to argue with winning two Super Bowls that will always trump everything but at the end it was pretty easy for teams to handle the Giants in every way.
Will McAdoo game plan week to week based on the opponent or will he continue the Coughlin way of out "executing them" game planning?
Will McAdoo change his lineup if the starter isn't performing? Or does a starter keep his job unless he gets hurt.
Will rookies get a chance to play without being a last resort?
Will McAdoo's coaching staff turn any mid round draft choices and college free agents into serviceable starters?
It's doubtful McAdoo lasts 12 years, let alone wins 2 Super Bowls but it's exciting knowing there's a chance some of the things that made the Giants so easy to beat the past 3 1/2 years might change for the better.
And also, we're blessed with a QB who stays healthy. Let's keep it that way. All it takes is one injury for a guy to start breaking down. Peyton was always healthy till that one neck issue on one bad hit ruined him.
And trick plays...meh. I don't feel strongly enough about that. It seems so minor.
For example, there were 6 punters credited with a rushing attempt this past season. Two of the attempts gained 7 yards, 1 gained 18 and the other three were either stopped for no gain or lost yardage.
When TC had a qb who could run in Brunell, they ran plenty. Brunell averaged 50 rushes a season. Eli simply is not a great or quick runner. He's never had more than 35 attempts in a season. It's not a strength. I doubt McAdoo does any more sneaks than TC.
Get used to RBC or running backs sharing time. The number of rushing attempts is down and the number of "bell cow" backs is way down. In 2005, there were 8 teams that ran the ball 500+ times and 10 players who ran the ball 300+ times. In 2015, there were 3 teams that ran the ball 500+ times (all 3 had running qb's btw) and only 1 player who ran the ball 300+ times (AP). RB's are getting to be specialists.
On top of which, Jennings' carries were managed this season, and successfully given his history. He was able to carry the ball more times for more yards than any season in his career and the only season he lasted 16 games. Vereen caught more passes than in any season in his career. I doubt there is any change in the way RB's are used unless there are different running backs.
The Giants have favored a shotgun and inside handoff to a running back which has worked more often that not. I only really remember them throwing back in 2008 when Eli hit Hixon to tie the game against the Panthers. Will McAdoo stay with that or try other looks for the 2 point.
ever go to think they just are not ready
The forced RB by committee was awful. Keep the momentum with a RB going. Get Vereen on the field as often as possible. Use him with Jennings in the backfield. They both can block and both can catch. Make defenses respond to the offensive terms
SMH
Do I think a once a game QB sneak is going to injure a QB? Probably not, but while I don't necessarily agree with it I do understand it.
Most likely TC saw a QB in one of his coaching stops get hurt on a sneak and vowed to never let it happen to a QB he coached.
I dont remember QB sneaks from that game, I remember the Giants running Jacobs to the right side on 3rd and less than a yard and again on 4th and less than a yard and getting absolutely stuffed. That was the only time I absolutely wanted GIlbride hanged, everyone in the world knew what was coming, and the offense of irreducible complexity turned into a power smash mouth running team for 2 plays and it got stuffed. Will the Eli line up in a tight formation with Eli under the center and run a play action with a TE or 2 leaking out into a route? Such an under utilized surprise attack.
There is however, one guy is a BC graduate- oh and he happens to be the owner.
Parcells twice called fakes in critical moments in playoff games.
they actually ran it in the season finale @ Washington in 2006 and then ran it again with Lorenzen the next week in the Wild Card @ Philly. I think that was it.
Technically, Cruz spent his rookie year on IR, I believe. He wasn't eligible for ROY when he had his breakout season, right?
And besides we're talking about whether Coughlin was willing to play rookies. If you're counting Cruz as a rookie in his breakout season, he played plenty. He didn't start every game, but that's not the measure of a coach's willingness to play rookies.
You're lumping together "playing" with "starting" and "starting from the beginning of the season" and "starting at their future best position."
Framing it differently, just looking at playing time, I recall these draft picks getting significant playing time in their rookie seasons under TC:
Justin Pugh,
Landon Collins
Erick Flowers
Odell Beckham Jr.
Will Tye
David Wilson
Ahmad Bradshaw
Brandon Jacobs
Eli Manning (ok, not a "draft pick")
Devon Kennard
Andre Williams
Prince Amukamara
Jason Pierre-Paul
Jacquian Williams
Tyler Sash
Matt Dodge
Kenny Phillips
Terrell Thomas
Bryan Kehl
Zak DeOssie
Steve Smith
Aaron Ross
Kevin Boss
Jay Alford
Chris Snee
Hakeem Nicks
Will Beatty
Basically, the Giants always expect their #1 pick to play as a rookie, and it's very rare that they don't have at least one rookie starter by year's end. Their #1 pick usually starts by the end of the season, though sometimes out of position.
A trick play would be nice, a fake STs play. Something more creative than we have seen recently. When you have a bad team you need to energize the guys sometimes with a trick play or something different.
If you are going to use a RB by committee you need to run the same O. You cant change the plays with the RB. We were too predictable.
I will add that the Giants need to be taught the art of a screen pass. Our screens when we sporadically run them are horrible. The whole O needs to be taught the correct way.
We also need some general excitement on O. With one of the greatest O talents in the game our O still found a way to be boring imo. Some of that is probably TC dictating the run game, but some of the best Os the Giants have is the 2 minute O, I would like to see them break into the 2 minute O at times maybe just to get Eli going or the game tempo. Perhaps after a 3 and out.
The risk-reward ratio just isn't there with Eli, especially behind a bad line. Even behind a good line, he had no instinct for finding a safe place to fall forward. The poor man couldn't even slide decently until his eighth year in the League.
This play is an enormous weapon for New England because they have clearly worked on it. I don't see any reason why the Giants shouldn't. When well executed it doesn't seem to matter whether the defense knows it's coming.
Also I've heard the run game was TC's design. IMO it was our tendency to telegraph runs if not simply be predictable. If that's the case, while I believe in balance, I'm curious to see how it changes. Do we run a less like a NE / GB type O? Or do we see new run formations? Save a few, I feel like we were much the same even under McAdoo. This aside from the 4 RB rotation
As I've mentioned b4 to me it's less about 'tricks' and more about simpler misdirections, be it as simple as counters, or using personnel accordingly (like AW & RJ as FB & RB esp in short yardage for the threat of the FB handoff). Same as QB sneak, it's at least helpful to show the threat / make the D consider 2-3-4 possibilities in such a quick hitting play b4 it happens...vs just never doing it / saying you don't