For what it's worth...some points for discussion. I have mentioned several times in the past few years that an organization has to have a philosophy or identity. It was noted prior to the Minny game, I believe, that the Vikings felt the Giants had no identity. I firmly believe this to be the case, at least offensively.
Running the ball in the NFL is a mentality. It is the desire to impose your will on the opponent, to be physical and to basically tell the opposition you cannot stop us. All BBIer's, especially the older ones, should be well aware of this as this was our mentality in the late 80's and early 90's. Bill Walsh once said of us, in 1990 I believe, when he was an analyst on NBC that the Giants played a game of attrition. They just wore defenses down. To a certain extent, from 2005-2010, we did that under TC with Barber/Jacobs then Bradshaw/Jacobs. There was a commitment to run the ball. Wasn't it 2008 where we had Derrick Ward and Jacobs run for over 1000 yards each? It is safe to say we have not had that mentality or that commitment to the run since then.
One can easily identify the reasons...a poor offensive line, mediocre to average running backs, the loss of David Wilson who we thought was going to be our bell cow at RB. And, finally, the move three years ago to the West Coast offense under McAdoo.
I know that West Coast offenses use the short pass to imitate a running game but when you look at most West Coast offenses, the ones that are consistently successful are the ones that have good running games. SF under Walsh was always better when Roger Craig had big seasons. KC currently under Andy Reid runs the West Coast but are one of the best running teams in the NFL. Reid with the Eagles always had a good running game with Staley, Westbrook then McCoy. But there has to be a commitment by the head coach to run the ball. You cannot simply abandon it when it doesn't work right off the bat.
All this to say that you can criticize the offensive line or the current running backs and we have all done so but any organization that runs the ball effectively does so because that is a fundamental of their team. They have a commitment from the head coach and a mentality that they are going to jam the ball down your throat.
All we have to do is look at Dallas...is there anyone here that believes this team would be 5-1 if you remove their ability to run the ball? Granted, they have a great Oline...still, they've had good lines before and not had that mentality of running the ball. They do have it now and, as it did two years ago, it allows their mediocre defense to succeed because they are on the field much less because of their ability to run.
To sum up, this is an organizational failure, starting with the GM and Head Coach...unless that changes, I don't see how our offense will get fixed any time soon. Add to that, we don't have a tight end who could block anyone's grandmother and the problem is even more apparent.
Who wants it more? Whoever 'wants' the ball more will usually rebound better. Go after it, be aggressive... desire.
Some say this applies to the running game....The OL or the DL? Who wants to move the pile more?
for a moment.
Passing more would also open up the run later. With the current personnel, the Giants should be pass first, run second. Instead, they have shown a stubborn insistence to run the ball even though it's not working, which then sets up lower probability passing situations.
The issue with being a passing team is that Eli is a slow starter and is maddeningly inconsistent...
Who wants it more? Whoever 'wants' the ball more will usually rebound better. Go after it, be aggressive... desire.
Some say this applies to the running game....The OL or the DL? Who wants to move the pile more?
I see what you are saying but take Dwight Howard for example. He's still a great rebounded even though time and time again it seems as though he doesn't care.
We need more talent. These guys can want it all they want, but they are getting outplayed by vastly superior guys on the other side of the line. We will be spending a lot on our line for 2017, both contracts and picks. We couldn't do it all in 1 off-season, people will have to come to grips with that sooner or later.
I've never done this before, or with any other team, so I don't know how common this is, but there was one very clear theme.
They are always 1 block away from a big run.
90% of the time it is 1 guy missing his assignment, 1 guy. The rest have won their battles. And its a different guy every time, and most often its the guy on the move or pulling. And some trouble getting to the second level. Richburg had a big whiff on a DT fell flat on his face, but most of the time it was a G pulling or a TE on the move, they even had Hart Pull which he whiffed on his guy. Flowers was the only one I didn't see miss an assignment in the run game, i did catch a pass protection that didn't look so good, but in the run game he seemed to do fine.
I'm also surprised that they don't run behind Flowers very often. He does his part by holding that side away from the play, but I thought he'd be used in a more powerful way.
Side note, Olgetree is very good!
for a moment.
Two 1st round picks and a high second round pick is a premium price. The people drafted are not delivering. That's the GM's fault.
An organizational failure would be signing Demarco Murray to run in the spread offense and base a majority of the offense around his weaknesses.
You may want to beat your chest, jam the ball down the opponents throat and run the power sweep while sitting in the freezing cold of January. If we did that, would it be an "organizational failure" to waste Beckham by using him as a blocker and decoy?
We have an offensive philosophy that doesn't jam the ball. It isn't even structured to do that. We don't even have a FB for Christ's sake. That isn't an organizational failure - it is a reliance on a different method of moving the ball.
Imposing wills was great in the days where teams had clear talent differentials. In the modern game - not so much.
An organizational failure would be signing Demarco Murray to run in the spread offense and base a majority of the offense around his weaknesses.
You may want to beat your chest, jam the ball down the opponents throat and run the power sweep while sitting in the freezing cold of January. If we did that, would it be an "organizational failure" to waste Beckham by using him as a blocker and decoy?
We have an offensive philosophy that doesn't jam the ball. It isn't even structured to do that. We don't even have a FB for Christ's sake. That isn't an organizational failure - it is a reliance on a different method of moving the ball.
Imposing wills was great in the days where teams had clear talent differentials. In the modern game - not so much.
Agreed. IMO, it's not the system, it's the talent or lack thereof....
As for Solari, it's not like it's the first day on the job for him, this isn't his first rodeo. You might be able to make the argument that the offensive line has regressed since the coaching change, but it's not like it had far to go to hit rock bottom.
As for Solari, it's not like it's the first day on the job for him, this isn't his first rodeo. You might be able to make the argument that the offensive line has regressed since the coaching change, but it's not like it had far to go to hit rock bottom.
Remember how Linval Joseph was good here, but not quite the player he became in Minny? Guess what he attributed it to?
http://www.bigblueview.com/2015/11/19/9760932/linval-joseph-minnesota-vikings-new-york-giants - ( New Window )
Quote:
but Mike Waufle did a pretty damn good job when he had talent on the line, he didn't just forget how to coach.
As for Solari, it's not like it's the first day on the job for him, this isn't his first rodeo. You might be able to make the argument that the offensive line has regressed since the coaching change, but it's not like it had far to go to hit rock bottom.
Remember how Linval Joseph was good here, but not quite the player he became in Minny? Guess what he attributed it to? http://www.bigblueview.com/2015/11/19/9760932/linval-joseph-minnesota-vikings-new-york-giants - ( New Window )
Okay, that might apply if Linval Joseph played on the offensive line which we're talking about, unless you're attributing one coach to equal every coach on the team, and secondly his quote was: “Coach Zimmer is more of a teacher as def. coach. Coach Coughlin was an offensive coach. That’s the biggest difference". Shocker, a defensive minded coach will get more out of a defensive player than an offensive minded coach. Finally, let's look at his stats. He was always a good to great player. It's not like he went from scrub to "all world" because of a coaching change:
West Coast offenses, when run properly, are still good run offenses like KC today or SF in the late 80's, early 90's. No question they also had good running backs as well.
Our imbalance, as Eric pointed out in his game review, of pass vs. run is indicative of our problems in this area. My main point is that the evidence indicates that establishing the run and the desire, even if the run game is struggling, to stick with it is not there and that just magnifies the issue. As we all know, the run game is something you have to stick with...you usually benefit in the 4th quarter when you do. We abandon the run far too easily and that is on McAdoo as it was early last year. The run game only got better late in the year when we stuck with it.
Teams are daring us to run against 5/6 man fronts and we can't establish anything. I have not examined the film enough to know if that is personnel, scheme, lack of a blocking TE, loss of Will Johnson or a combination of all of those things. Nonetheless, we will not improve on offense until these things are fixed or attempted to be fixed. Even if we are just trying to make the playoffs this year with no Super Bowl vision (as most here seem to think), at some point we have to focus on improving the run game.
I have my ideas on how to fix that but, for this post, I just feel the organization is not focused on the importance of the running game.
Pretty much. And the C isn't playing well, either.
Take your example here:
Does KC really run a WC offense properly? They went an ENTIRE SEASON without throwing a TD pass to a WR. Can you imagine if we were running the ball for 150 yards a game and not throwing TD passes? Your OP would be similar, just directed at an "organizational failure" on throwing the ball.
My point remains - this isn't an organizational failure, it is a conscious choice. We can debate the choice, but calling the lack of a running game an organizational failure when we choose to run from the shotgun 90% of the time doesn't hold water.
A failure would be focusing all of the energy towards running the ball, selecting personnel whose strength is running the ball, having a coach who emphasizes running the ball, and then failing.
I have my ideas on how to fix that but, for this post, I just feel the organization is not focused on the importance of the running game.
Agree 100%.. as fans we can pretend that we know if its OL's fault, coaching fault, or RB fault but we probably don't know the answer.. however its clear that overall the organization is not focused on getting the running game going..
Good example.
would rather have to be throwing the ball majority of time to run a 4 minute offense? Or ability to run efficiently?
Also, would do WONDERS to that so-called cover 2 that defenses have been frustrating the Giants O with. 2 things that would do wonders to this O, a run game and blocking TE that is also is a legit threat in the seams.
We don't use a FB in our sets. We have done exactly what you say we haven't done and gone to plays that don't utilize the FB. We run primarily out of the shotgun - exactly what is the FB's role in that formation?
How can it be an organizational failure when we realize we aren't going to use a FB, don't even carry one, and very rarely run from anything but the shotgun?
Like I said above - if we planned to run the ball, signed coaches and players whose strengths were to run the ball, used the running game as the basis for our offense and THEN failed - it would be an organizational failure.
what you are seeing is a conscious choice.
However, I also feel that the RB by committee has to go away. None of our backs develop any rhythm at all before being swapped out. Tiki would have failed in this system, his mo was often 1, 1, -3, 3, 2, 50... Pulling RBs either ever series or mid series isnt working so stick with one and a changeup for a game or three and see if its the RB or the Line or both, but this constant in out in out like the fricking hokey pokey is not doing us and favors in that department either.
I believe that all players in the NFL have the desire to "impose their will" on the opponent. So, why do some players consistently perform better than others? It's talent.
O-line Pugh is the best right now Flowers is not the
answer yet at LT Richberg is under performing
Hart is getting better but he is now just approaching
average .
We do not have a Running back that teams have to game plan
for . We don't have a WR with size to crate miss-matches .
Mac has to play the cards he is dealt so he needs to
find a way to utilize his bench you have two WR that
have size both are raw But Davis and Powe are rotting
on the bench while Cruz is doing his best playing out
of position . We do not have one single Dominate
O-line player that makes a difference in the run game .
And no TE that can help either .
2. The team doesn't have a TE that can block consistently
3. The team chose not to back-fill the FB
Fundamentals - if you can't run-block, it should surprise no one that you can't run well with any consistency.
This offense could run all sorts of QB under center formations, hundreds of ways to run out of that and hundreds of variations on passing.
That formation still gives you short, middle and deep passing options if you see Perkins and Tye as receiving options.
With so much more power run potential, play action becomes better, wheel routes, dump offs become more effective, max protect gives you 5 OL + a good pass protecting TE (beatty) and even up to two extra on top of those.
The two (ODB + 1) will get open in those circumstances and nobody would really want to run cover two against it, if they do you run power and alternate shorts.
I'd love for them to run far less plays under shotgun but with 3 WR's still. We run what seems like 3 different run plays and they are hardly ever successful.
Wilson, drafted the player after TB took Martin, was never, ever going to be the bell cow at RB. That's not the kind of player he was drafted to be. He was going to be a guy who thrived in open space, on screens, pitches, etc. He was not, in college, and never going to be in the NFL, a RB off-tackle and up the gut.
So, this goes to Fat Man's point, that the organizational strategy on O, piecemeal if you ask me, was going in the direction the League as a whole seemed to be. It's just that Reese has not done it well in his drafting.
And this raises the more conjectural point: were the OL high picks drafted to fit in a WCO, or were they drafted because they were solid offensive linemen? For the past several years, they seem one-dimensional, and not standout in that dimension at all, and quite inept in the running game. And of course that gets back to Reese's handicapping as to what players--what positions--one places value on. His assessment that positions can safely be ignored because they are not high value has been exposed as highly questionable, at best.
Quote:
One can easily identify the reasons...a poor offensive line, mediocre to average running backs, the loss of David Wilson who we thought was going to be our bell cow at RB. And, finally, the move three years ago to the West Coast offense under McAdoo.
Wilson, drafted the player after TB took Martin, was never, ever going to be the bell cow at RB. That's not the kind of player he was drafted to be. He was going to be a guy who thrived in open space, on screens, pitches, etc. He was not, in college, and never going to be in the NFL, a RB off-tackle and up the gut.
So, this goes to Fat Man's point, that the organizational strategy on O, piecemeal if you ask me, was going in the direction the League as a whole seemed to be. It's just that Reese has not done it well in his drafting.
And this raises the more conjectural point: were the OL high picks drafted to fit in a WCO, or were they drafted because they were solid offensive linemen? For the past several years, they seem one-dimensional, and not standout in that dimension at all, and quite inept in the running game. And of course that gets back to Reese's handicapping as to what players--what positions--one places value on. His assessment that positions can safely be ignored because they are not high value has been exposed as highly questionable, at best.
Tiki Barber 1997 - 5'10 200 lbs was drafted as a 3rd down back with potential.
David Wilson - 2012 - 5'10 206 lbs was drafted as an explosive playmaker, kick returner, 3rd down back with huge potential.
Who is to say, he wouldn't become Tiki Barber? Tiki wasn't great his first few years??? I don't agree with your argument
Quote:
One can easily identify the reasons...a poor offensive line, mediocre to average running backs, the loss of David Wilson who we thought was going to be our bell cow at RB. And, finally, the move three years ago to the West Coast offense under McAdoo.
Wilson, drafted the player after TB took Martin, was never, ever going to be the bell cow at RB. That's not the kind of player he was drafted to be. He was going to be a guy who thrived in open space, on screens, pitches, etc. He was not, in college, and never going to be in the NFL, a RB off-tackle and up the gut.
So, this goes to Fat Man's point, that the organizational strategy on O, piecemeal if you ask me, was going in the direction the League as a whole seemed to be. It's just that Reese has not done it well in his drafting.
And this raises the more conjectural point: were the OL high picks drafted to fit in a WCO, or were they drafted because they were solid offensive linemen? For the past several years, they seem one-dimensional, and not standout in that dimension at all, and quite inept in the running game. And of course that gets back to Reese's handicapping as to what players--what positions--one places value on. His assessment that positions can safely be ignored because they are not high value has been exposed as highly questionable, at best.
Also, Flowers seems to be better at run blocking than pass blocking. He is playing out of position.
I meant Flaherty. I was talking about the offensive line coach and just switched them when typing on accident.
3) no FB at all, let alone one who can block
4) questionable line play, lack of physicality in the middle by Richburg and Jerry
5) mediocre backs (but not as important as 1-4)
It's much easier to blame the organization for the Xs and Os.
But it's to the point only in the context of the OP and the commitment to a running game that imposes its will on the opposition and an organizational commitment to do so.
I think FMiC might agree that our personnel does not fit with the identity the FO has apparently elected. Wilson might have fit nicely there.
The ridiculousness to say that it's only one guy on each play that is failing is folly. This front 5 and TE create little to no space...case closed. And our RBs have little to no speed and shiftiness to them to get thru a small opening and scare a defense. Case closed.
Even more ridiculous is the idea that Flowers and Pugh have been doing a good job. They haven't unless you just want to grade them against how bad the Richburg and the right side has been.
Watching Jennings at this point run into the teeth of a defense is beyond complacency. Yes he pass protects well but then kiss the ability to create a running game goodbye. He is as slow and nimble as Eli.
And stop with the we have two #1s and a #2 on the line. It doesn't matter because they haven't blocked shit in any single game this season. We will need to get better players if u want to run.
Our best strategy has to be pass to set up the run. If you all think differently I would love to debate it.
We don't really have road graders for the running game and our TE's are abysmal at blocking so we are definitely more built for the passing game IMO.
I actually think we have many pieces ideal for the system we are in. One glaring issue is that systems like this usually are optimized through precision passing, and that really isn't a strength of Eli. I feel that philosophically, we are too reliant on having extended drives that are made more difficult without the running game threat and without eli being the most accurate guy.
But I don't think of this as an organizational failure in the least. It is an offensive philosophy that has pluses and minuses, just like Gilbride's offense did, and pretty much any offense ever created.
But it's to the point only in the context of the OP and the commitment to a running game that imposes its will on the opposition and an organizational commitment to do so.
I think FMiC might agree that our personnel does not fit with the identity the FO has apparently elected. Wilson might have fit nicely there.
Unless your name is Le'Veon Bell,Jamaal Charles, or Tiki Barber. I never liked the big backs so I am biased.
Sometimes you make it happen, these guys are professionals
You cannot just say 'we have the guys to run vanilla late 90s throw and catch, so why bother doing other shit.'