Saw this posted via Magary's Jamboroo since i don't do twitter...
http://deadspin.com/what-it-s-like-to-watch-your-kid-lose-1789772659
Anyhow the below is a tweet from someone named Chris Brown from "smartfootball" (?)
Giants are in "11" personnel (3 WRs, 1 RB 1 TE) 96%+ of the time, and unbelievably for 100% of all passing plays. So... yeah?
Now of course, for any accurate comparison, one would have to know how heavily other offenses go to their "favorite" personnel package, but this seems kind of crazy. I realize you can't re-invent your offense 12 games in, but you've got to believe the playbook extends beyond 1 single personnel package.
This to me, goes hand in hand with the massive skew toward run plays out of shotgun. Are the offensive woes in part due to a lack of any sort of variability? i.e. the defense knows what's coming, there's little to study for, etc...?
Not sure if that's Reese or McAdoo but it's a beyond moronic choice. Especially as the O is putrid. But hey McAdoo is a future Bill Walsh. I mean he's got the whole league right where he wants them.
What about 2 back sets? 4 WR sets? Empty backfield?
There's quite a few alternatives. I'm really not sure why we are using 11 on such a staggering amount of plays or why there's an absolute refusal to add a FB to the roster.
"We know....We know....."
Quote:
Very few people ask that question. If management doesn't like the diversity in personnel packages, get some better players. McAdoo wants to see McAdoo succeed as much as we do.
What about 2 back sets? 4 WR sets? Empty backfield?
There's quite a few alternatives. I'm really not sure why we are using 11 on such a staggering amount of plays or why there's an absolute refusal to add a FB to the roster.
Because the HC OC wants to. No just reason
Quote:
Very few people ask that question. If management doesn't like the diversity in personnel packages, get some better players. McAdoo wants to see McAdoo succeed as much as we do.
What about 2 back sets? 4 WR sets? Empty backfield?
There's quite a few alternatives. I'm really not sure why we are using 11 on such a staggering amount of plays or why there's an absolute refusal to add a FB to the roster.
11 is the personnel grouping, not the formation. The Giants often have 4 WR look by splitting out a TE or a RB. The also have a 2 back set by putting a TE in the backfield.
Using the 11 personnel allows the Giants to move to those other formations without allowing the defense to substitute. By running all their plays out of the same personnel grouping the Giants should be less predictable.
Quote:
Very few people ask that question. If management doesn't like the diversity in personnel packages, get some better players. McAdoo wants to see McAdoo succeed as much as we do.
What about 2 back sets? 4 WR sets? Empty backfield?
There's quite a few alternatives. I'm really not sure why we are using 11 on such a staggering amount of plays or why there's an absolute refusal to add a FB to the roster.
I've been saying I want some 4WR sets for weeks now. It doesn't have to be often, just some plays a game to change it up. It also,puts Cruz back in one of the slots where he's most effective.
It'd be different if we were getting decent production or blocking from the TE position. I don't see the harm in getting another WR out there in place of a TE once in a while. Probably get D's out of their two deep safety look as well.
Quote:
Very few people ask that question. If management doesn't like the diversity in personnel packages, get some better players. McAdoo wants to see McAdoo succeed as much as we do.
What about 2 back sets? 4 WR sets? Empty backfield?
There's quite a few alternatives. I'm really not sure why we are using 11 on such a staggering amount of plays or why there's an absolute refusal to add a FB to the roster.
You know the Oline doesn't give a bunch or Trips formation time to form? Green Bay puts both TEs out Wide in this formation and forces the smaller CBs to cover them. Problem is we don't have Big TEs that can catch.
If you go 4 wrs the defens will send 7 and kill Eli whos line can not handle 4 and 5.
If you put both rbs in the backfield then the other team will know you are throwing it or if you run you leave Jennings throwing a block for Perkins or visa versa. Neither rb can throw a lead block. So with 11 personal you foce the defense into nickle and dime coverages and they rush 5-6 which means you are supposed to run over them. Problem Jerry and richberg are horrible at opening a hole or even beating their own guy. You have no TEs that can block or a Fullback that you can run behind to get the LBs off the runner. So now you know what you have you throw short quick passes so you don't injurer your QB and hope OBJ or Shepard can break one. Cruz at this point has no breakaway speed. This is what the Coach is dealing with?
Waiting for the usual Blind homers to answer my question. How harmful would it be to cut Josh Johnson for a FB or a real blocking TE type. Good God Bear Pascoe where are you. But hey A third QB is makes so much more sense.
Quote:
In comment 13255955 widmerseyebrow said:
Quote:
Very few people ask that question. If management doesn't like the diversity in personnel packages, get some better players. McAdoo wants to see McAdoo succeed as much as we do.
What about 2 back sets? 4 WR sets? Empty backfield?
There's quite a few alternatives. I'm really not sure why we are using 11 on such a staggering amount of plays or why there's an absolute refusal to add a FB to the roster.
11 is the personnel grouping, not the formation. The Giants often have 4 WR look by splitting out a TE or a RB. The also have a 2 back set by putting a TE in the backfield.
Using the 11 personnel allows the Giants to move to those other formations without allowing the defense to substitute. By running all their plays out of the same personnel grouping the Giants should be less predictable.
I understand what 11 personnel is. But we're not changing formations, either. We're running a staggering amount of plays out of the gun with an offset back, 3 WR and a TE at the LOS.
How often has this team used 10 personnel or 00 personnel? I can barely recall ANY instances of it.
What about 20 or 21 personnel?
Waiting for the usual Blind homers to answer my question. How harmful would it be to cut Josh Johnson for a FB or a real blocking TE type. Good God Bear Pascoe where are you. But hey A third QB is makes so much more sense.
I agree with this completely. For a team that struggles so mightily with the running game, you'd think a minor investment in a FB (it's not as if they make skill position player $...though simultaneously it's not as good ones grow on trees...) could certainly help matters.
Quote:
In comment 13255955 widmerseyebrow said:
Quote:
Very few people ask that question. If management doesn't like the diversity in personnel packages, get some better players. McAdoo wants to see McAdoo succeed as much as we do.
What about 2 back sets? 4 WR sets? Empty backfield?
There's quite a few alternatives. I'm really not sure why we are using 11 on such a staggering amount of plays or why there's an absolute refusal to add a FB to the roster.
You know the Oline doesn't give a bunch or Trips formation time to form? Green Bay puts both TEs out Wide in this formation and forces the smaller CBs to cover them. Problem is we don't have Big TEs that can catch.
If you go 4 wrs the defens will send 7 and kill Eli whos line can not handle 4 and 5.
If you put both rbs in the backfield then the other team will know you are throwing it or if you run you leave Jennings throwing a block for Perkins or visa versa. Neither rb can throw a lead block. So with 11 personal you foce the defense into nickle and dime coverages and they rush 5-6 which means you are supposed to run over them. Problem Jerry and richberg are horrible at opening a hole or even beating their own guy. You have no TEs that can block or a Fullback that you can run behind to get the LBs off the runner. So now you know what you have you throw short quick passes so you don't injurer your QB and hope OBJ or Shepard can break one. Cruz at this point has no breakaway speed. This is what the Coach is dealing with?
If Eli would get killed running 4WR sets why doesn't he get killed with 3WR's and Tye all going out on pass plays? I really don't think having another WR out there in place of Tye every once in a while puts Eli at any more risk and it just might give the O the boost they need. Not to mention giving D's a bit more to prepare for.
Quote:
In comment 13255966 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 13255955 widmerseyebrow said:
Quote:
Very few people ask that question. If management doesn't like the diversity in personnel packages, get some better players. McAdoo wants to see McAdoo succeed as much as we do.
What about 2 back sets? 4 WR sets? Empty backfield?
There's quite a few alternatives. I'm really not sure why we are using 11 on such a staggering amount of plays or why there's an absolute refusal to add a FB to the roster.
You know the Oline doesn't give a bunch or Trips formation time to form? Green Bay puts both TEs out Wide in this formation and forces the smaller CBs to cover them. Problem is we don't have Big TEs that can catch.
If you go 4 wrs the defens will send 7 and kill Eli whos line can not handle 4 and 5.
If you put both rbs in the backfield then the other team will know you are throwing it or if you run you leave Jennings throwing a block for Perkins or visa versa. Neither rb can throw a lead block. So with 11 personal you foce the defense into nickle and dime coverages and they rush 5-6 which means you are supposed to run over them. Problem Jerry and richberg are horrible at opening a hole or even beating their own guy. You have no TEs that can block or a Fullback that you can run behind to get the LBs off the runner. So now you know what you have you throw short quick passes so you don't injurer your QB and hope OBJ or Shepard can break one. Cruz at this point has no breakaway speed. This is what the Coach is dealing with?
If Eli would get killed running 4WR sets why doesn't he get killed with 3WR's and Tye all going out on pass plays? I really don't think having another WR out there in place of Tye every once in a while puts Eli at any more risk and it just might give the O the boost they need. Not to mention giving D's a bit more to prepare for.
You put 4 wrs and a TE out there and there is no one in the back field as a safety valve to keep the defense guessing if its run or pass. If you don't have the TE in then its our 5 guys protecting a rush of 6-7. you want that? The offense we run is based on what the Defense give you. This is the offense Greenbay has used and won a superbowl with.
And I think it is actually typed as a serious suggestion.
And I think it is actually typed as a serious suggestion.
i agree with the sentiment. i mean we aren't reinventing the offense 12 games in, that's for sure. i think i meant it (can't speak for anyone else) in terms of it perhaps being not the worst idea after this year given the struggles of the offense and run game in particular this season.
There's no FB on the roster, only 3 WR who have proven they can do much, etc.
I'm suggesting adding a FB because it might enable us to actually use some different sets. It feels like we have to do this out of necessity more than by design.
Even still, I don't see why we can't use 2RB or 4WR sets.
If the offense wasn't the weak link on the team right now, it would be easy to just say "leave well enough alone"... but what we're doing obviously isn't working all that well so it's frustrating to see us continue to operate out of such a small box on a weekly basis.
And I think it is actually typed as a serious suggestion.
True we'd be better off signing a TE that can block... but good luck finding one of those now. Man I wish Will Johnson didn't get hurt, would love to see how he would've helped this Offense go (or not).
Quote:
In comment 13255983 shelovesnycsports said:
Quote:
In comment 13255966 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 13255955 widmerseyebrow said:
Quote:
Very few people ask that question. If management doesn't like the diversity in personnel packages, get some better players. McAdoo wants to see McAdoo succeed as much as we do.
What about 2 back sets? 4 WR sets? Empty backfield?
There's quite a few alternatives. I'm really not sure why we are using 11 on such a staggering amount of plays or why there's an absolute refusal to add a FB to the roster.
You know the Oline doesn't give a bunch or Trips formation time to form? Green Bay puts both TEs out Wide in this formation and forces the smaller CBs to cover them. Problem is we don't have Big TEs that can catch.
If you go 4 wrs the defens will send 7 and kill Eli whos line can not handle 4 and 5.
If you put both rbs in the backfield then the other team will know you are throwing it or if you run you leave Jennings throwing a block for Perkins or visa versa. Neither rb can throw a lead block. So with 11 personal you foce the defense into nickle and dime coverages and they rush 5-6 which means you are supposed to run over them. Problem Jerry and richberg are horrible at opening a hole or even beating their own guy. You have no TEs that can block or a Fullback that you can run behind to get the LBs off the runner. So now you know what you have you throw short quick passes so you don't injurer your QB and hope OBJ or Shepard can break one. Cruz at this point has no breakaway speed. This is what the Coach is dealing with?
If Eli would get killed running 4WR sets why doesn't he get killed with 3WR's and Tye all going out on pass plays? I really don't think having another WR out there in place of Tye every once in a while puts Eli at any more risk and it just might give the O the boost they need. Not to mention giving D's a bit more to prepare for.
You put 4 wrs and a TE out there and there is no one in the back field as a safety valve to keep the defense guessing if its run or pass. If you don't have the TE in then its our 5 guys protecting a rush of 6-7. you want that? The offense we run is based on what the Defense give you. This is the offense Greenbay has used and won a superbowl with.
Give me a 4WR set with a RB in there instead of Tye or any TE a few plays a game and I'll take my chances. Eli isn't getting killed when Tye goes out on pass plays so I'd just like to see a quicker, better route running WR in there in his place once in a while. Hell they run some 4wide with Tye as the 4th guy out and Eli isn't getting killed.
I don't see what's so hard to get about that. You keep saying the D will send 6-7 guys but if that happens Eli could hit a big play too. He also would see it coming and have a hot read. It's really not much different than what they're doing now, just get a WR in there in place of Tye for a few plays. How about a quick 4 wide to stretch the D and hit Vereen or Perkins on a quick wheel route out of the backfield or even just a dump off? Something, anything other than the oh so predictable shit they're running 90+ % of the time.
I'm not asking them to go 5wide with no protection other than the OLine.
Eli= 11
Our 5 protecting Eli
Defense 5 dbs
2 lbs
4 linemen really 6 rushers.
6 against or 5 counting non of them fucking up.
You see what Mac has to deal with.
shelovesnycsports : 11:27 pm : link : reply
5 offensive linemen=10
Eli= 11
Our 5 protecting Eli
Defense 5 dbs
2 lbs
4 linemen really 6 rushers.
6 against or 5 counting non of them fucking up.
You see what Mac has to deal with.
Will be the first Time....
Eli= 11
Our 5 protecting Eli
Defense 5 dbs
2 lbs
4 linemen really 6 rushers.
6 against or 5 counting non of them fucking up.
You see what Mac has to deal with.
Umm 5 OL + 1 RB = 6 protecting Eli. Pretty much the exact same thing they run when Tye and the 3WR's go out on passes now. What don't you get about that? All I'm asking is to replace Tye with a WR on a few plays.
If they rush six that leaves five guys to cover four. Lots of one on ones there. I'm not as sure as you that D's will rush six against that set. Hell, even if they rush five it still leaves some one on ones. Plus the benefit of having both Shepard and Cruz in the slots. You don't think Eli could take advantage of that?
If you replace Tye the defense Takes out a LB and replaces with a DB. 5 DBs in a Zone is very hard to throw into.
now if we had a RB that took more than two guys to take down?
think Jacobs in his prime or Bradshaw.
Also even when teams rush 4 they get home as the steelers did all sorts of traps and zone blitzing. Things our Line can not handle Jerry Richburg Flowers
If you replace Tye the defense Takes out a LB and replaces with a DB. 5 DBs in a Zone is very hard to throw into.
now if we had a RB that took more than two guys to take down?
think Jacobs in his prime or Bradshaw.
Also even when teams rush 4 they get home as the steelers did all sorts of traps and zone blitzing. Things our Line can not handle Jerry Richburg Flowers
Yeah, I'd actually love seeing our 4Wr's going out on routes against 5 Db's a few times a game. Zone or man, some of them are gonna be open. Even a quick hitter could turn out to be a big play. Eli finding the one on one and getting it out quickly to a shifty guy with some speed sounds good to me.
Farther than Tye could get for one thing, and it's also something else a D has to prepare for. As it is now, they're sitting back in their recliners preparing for this predictable O.
What? Talk about contradicting yourself! According to your previous posts, if the Giants ran anything like that, the D would send 5-6 and Eli would get killed. Lol.
if the other team rushes 5 you have the opportunity for a big play but Eli is not good throwing east-west in a hurry and the receiver has to catch the ball and run.
A: Yes
I agree they have to execute much better but when a team runs the same personnel out there 90+% of the time, how much guessing does a D really have to do? It's about tendencies and when you tend to do the same thing it's much easier to prepare for.
I've heard more than a few times in the past couple of weeks from several different outlets how NFL coaches/organizations have said the Giants O is the easiest O in the league to prepare for. It'd be one thing if they were easy and couldn't be stopped but that's hardly the case.
Maybe not being so predictable would help their execution, if for no other reason than D's not being so comfortable or confident.
They seem to be running many different sets of plays based on the chart McAdoo held up on Sunday. Of course, one wouldn't know it by watching the game.
I wonder what is scribbled on the Post-It notes....
The league average on 11 personnel is 59%. Since PFF has been tracking personnel groupings no team ran it more than 75% of the time until we ran it 80% of the time last year. I got this from a Dan Duggan story after the Browns game. He also wrote in that article how after back to back three and outs in the second half of that game, we went to a two TE formation. What a novel idea! For the first two plays, Jennings ran for 6, then 7 yards. The Browns were probably flabbergasted, even for them. But why stick to something that works? After that, we went back to the same g**damned 11 personnel and couldn't manage 300 total yards on the worst defense in the league. Outside of the two plays to take a knee, they were the only two plays in the entire f***ing game where we weren't in 11 personnel.
There are no more Browns and Bears games on the schedule. Whether we make the playoffs or not, this offense sucks and is a huge disappointment from a guy who was hired as HC because of what he did as the OC. Even with some shortcomings on the current active roster, there's no excuse when you have Beckham, young talent like Shepard, Perkins and Adams, and even an older Cruz who is misused anyway. I'm tired of excuses and the blame being put on specific players. Minnesota has a worse line and running game, with receivers that aren't as talented and switched OC's and yet Sam Bradford, who's not on Eli's level is completing 71% of his passes with only 3 INT's. Why? Because despite their shortcomings they don't give a defense the same thing to look at! Run more TE sets. Give Flowers help with more chipping or double teams. Roll Eli out more often. Go to a Jumbo set. Bring in a sixth lineman in place of the TE. It's not like Will Tye is Tony Gonzalez. What is he averaging, 4 targets a game? Just do something different. Because going up to the podium every week and saying "we need to execute better" and "we need more plays" has long been an inexcusable response.
We have the same personnel package.
Two completely different things.
I mean, even if teams assume we can only run a couple of ways, they still have to defend the multiple variations of passing routes. I mean, people joke about the Chinese menu and then say we only run a couple plays, but that isn't even close to the truth.
We've completely swung in the opposite direction from a perspective standpoint vs. when Gilbride was here. People screamed SIMPLIFY THE OFFENSE. Now, we've apparently simplified it and people don't like that either.
In realty, the offense was neither too complex then and not too simple now, but that's too easy of a response for many to grasp.
I didn't realize simple could be so simple until McAdoo's offense. My problem is similar however. We don't have the offensive line to run the same personnel grouping out there over and over again. We know Flowers has terrible technique. Give him help. Adams has been our best blocker since we drafted him but it took Donnell to make the same boneheaded plays he's always made before we gave Adams a jersey. Eli is one of the fastest in the league getting the ball out of his hands because he doesn't have time. It seems like every pass play he's rushed because of mediocre at best protection, which doesn't allow him to go through progressions and why he has a below average completion percentage and weeks where one of our receivers aren't getting targets. What point is it to have 3 WR sets on 100% of the pass plays if you can't get a chance to throw their way for an entire game? Yet we almost never see a jumbo set, or chipping from a RB/TE. Like I said, it's not like Tye is All Pro. We can afford to take him off the field to give our 36 year old QB extra protection as well as time to throw. Instead teams know we aren't effective running the ball because we don't have great run blockers, we rarely put extra blockers on the line and we continue to trot Jennings out there despite being far less explosive than Perkins. Not to mention, even we as fans from our couch know exactly when we're going to run it. So of course the pros know. And on pass plays teams just drop seven into coverage because there's a good chance pass pro will break down (most likely Flowers), eliminating quality deep passes and creating few open windows. It's too predictable.
Having a fullback in a WCO oriented offense shouldn't be jaw-dropping.
It's not a formation issue, it *is* a personnel issue. Will Tye is playing the part of fullback. He's not particularly good at.
With Jennings and Vereen missing time - we're not winning those 2-1,3-2,4-3s McAdoo referenced this week.