be the smartest man in the room, but if your players don't execute, then it means nothing. There were plenty of opportunities to score mid-20's and more, but for drops, errant passes, failed blocks, and inopportune penalties. Sometimes it's the players.
Poor offensive performance this year, in no small part due to being with the same personnel grouping 95% of the time.
The guy has never presided as OC over a decent offense. McAdoo says we're going to look long and hard at everything, well, if we're OK with improving underperforming players, no reason why coaches or coordinators shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny.
Hell yes. Seriously. Do you want to keep thia Vanilla offense that has not done anything since Mcadoo arrived? Think about every preseason how this offense performed and how everyone wondered if Mcadoo was just calling vanilla plays in preseason? 90% enough said.
I can't fathom the team not adjusting over 17 games
would have to fire himself. Sullivan is basically there to give McAdoo his juice box and talk to the players. You all know McAdoo is calling the plays in his offense why do you constantly pretend like it is someone else?
Seriously in all the games this season how many times did the television crew even cut to Sullivan? There's your answer.
McAdoo is a much better game manager than I expected, and I think he's part of the future of the organization. His offensive play calling (however much he leads Eli) leaves something to be desired. Given that, I don't know whether a new OC would be able to give the offense more variety. A lot of people talk about how the personnel was too limiting that we were forced to be more conservative than we might be with other personnel. If that is the case, is there little value in bringing in a new OC? Is it just a matter of bringing in playmakers? At what point does the OC have a responsibility to rejuvenate the offense or should we expect the OC to do so? Is our OC a relatively superfluous job given McAdoo's function?
But there is an aspect involved with the Offense that needs to be changed. You can't leave things as they are after the putrid output this O achieved this season.
I personally believe MacAdoo is taking on too much
Either before or after Sean Payton was his OC, Fassel gave his RBs coach the title of OC. However, Fassel called all the plays and everyone knew that Fassel was the one responsible for the offense.
I think we've got the same situation here. It's McAdoo's offense that the Giants are running. Sullivan is the OC in name only. He doesn't deserve to be fired but he could well take the hit for McAdoo's play calling.
With a poor OL, no TE, or a true #2 WR hard to blame coaches
And at RB, you had a good blocker who's very slow in Jennings, and Perkins who's a decent runner but I guess took some time to develop his blocking skills. And of course Vereen missed a chunk of the season.
When the offense turned ugly in Gilbride's last season, he was very forthcoming during an interview (during the season, not after he was forced into retirement)... he said something like when you have glaring weaknesses in talent, no matter what adjustments you make, teams quickly catch on and counter those adjustments. You can make an argument he was deflecting blame and looking after his own butt, but it makes sense.
Giants faced cover 2 defense mostly. The way to beat that (not an expert, but according to everything I read/heard) is a good running game & with a decent TE to threaten the middle of the field. Giants had neither. And to top it off, they had a slot WR, coming back from serious injuries playing outside.
We have an offensive coordinator? That's shocking.
Get McAdoo someone who actually shares his philosophy. Right now it's like bubble gum and popsicle sticks holding Eli and Ben McAdoo together. I think Sully is here for Eli, and only Eli. Right now it's square peg, round hole - Eli is just too smart a QB to not be able to work in this offense, but it is not best suited for him. He's a gunslinger who reads the defense pre-snap as well as anyone playing the game (which is how he is "getting by" in the WCO imo). He certainly doesn't have the consistent footwork that the WCO bases progressions off of, and when the offensive line is shit and you don't trust them, no running game, well, all the timing gets messed up and you have a broken offense.
Nassib is better suited to this offense, which many suspected was a significant motivator for the organization in moving in this direction (players like Victor Cruz publicly said something to this effect when McAdoo was hired).
McAdoo is here for the future, and if he continues having success he'll get his own OC and QB (Nassib or someone else) pretty soon through attrition. He's not even 40 yet!
hard to blame the OC when the HC is calling the plays. I agree with
The Giants couldn't get OBJ free most of the year. They couldn't score at all this year and couldn't sustain drives. Now is it more a matter of execution, game-planning or a combo of both? There were teams in this league with lesser talent and actually played much better on offense. The West Coast Offense seemed like it was not in synch at all. I think the OC is a guy that would also be making in game adjustments. I'm not so sure we saw enough of that either. Quite frankly, I'd keep Sullivan around in some capacity, but would get a real WCO coordinator in here. A guy with experience and some success in this league. McAdoo doesn't have the time to devote to the Offense, as a Head Coach. Get somebody in here that can turn this offense around!
...there's little reason to consider him an important part of the solution.
Does Mike Sullivan "deserve" to be fired? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I couldn't care less about the justice of his fate. I just want the Giants to have the best possible coordinator for the offense they are running and the talent they are likely to have in 2017. While I don't have a list of smart, up-and-coming, WCO-savvy coaches, it's hard to believe that there isn't a better fit out there than Sullivan.
RE: hard to blame the OC when the HC is calling the plays. I agree with
When the offense turned ugly in Gilbride's last season, he was very forthcoming during an interview (during the season, not after he was forced into retirement)... he said something like when you have glaring weaknesses in talent, no matter what adjustments you make, teams quickly catch on and counter those adjustments. You can make an argument he was deflecting blame and looking after his own butt, but it makes sense.
I don't think he was covering his ass. It reads more as an accurate assessment than anything else. Instead of a read and react option route where Eli and the receiver are taking advantage of the DB by making the same reads inside the play, the receivers were getting taken out at the stem of the route and forced out of the driver's seat on that decision - that's when Eli and the receivers looked so out of whack. The option on the route is the exploit and where the "complexity" came from, so for a defense it makes sense to not let the receiver get to the point where the receiver can execute their downfield read. Cut off the decision. That's the counter and that's the adjustments teams made to defeat it.
As with any 'Repeal and Replace'-type discussion...
...the big question is what comes next. One obvious candidate is Alex Van Pelt, who worked alongside McAdoo in Green Bay and succeeded him as QB coach. I don't know what kind of relationship they have, or how well regarded Van Pelt is in the McCarthy tree.
Mike McCarthy runs his offensive staff as a braintrust (with himself at the top), and rotates the coaches through different roles. Van Pelt has previously coached the Green Bay RBs, and divided his time between WRs and QBs in 2015. He's not all that high on the official org chart, with AHC-Offense Tom Clements and OC Edgar Bennett outranking him. So Sullivan's job would be a clear promotion.
Van Pelt's one season as Offensive Coordinator in Buffalo was a mess, but so was the whole team. Van Pelt replaced Turk Schonert just before the start of the season, and Dick Jauron was fired in November. (Our old friend Perry Fewell took over, earning respect around the League for his work as Interim HC on a sinking ship.) The next year, he seems to have done a pretty good job with Josh Freeman in Tampa, though I think he was still around when Freeman regressed in 2011.
I'm sure there are other, stronger possibilities. If McAdoo were reaching back to his roots, though, Van Pelt would rate an interview.
is look to copy the Cowboys model. I think that's a lot more responsible for their recent success (well, that and all the picks on the OL) than anything else.
They went out and hired several ex-coaches and made them responsible for different elements of the game, giving them AHC level titles.
You don't have to can Sullivan, or even demote him. Go out and hire someone good and make him the 'passing coordinator' or some other dopey title. Having another brain in the room, so long as they're all on the same page, can't hurt, and there's no cap for coaches. Get guys that can work together, and get them to work.
Another name to consider: Eagles' QB Coach John DiFilippo.
The Giants have known him for a long time: he broke down tape for Coughlin for two years, and his dad was AD at Boston College until 2012. Like Van Pelt, he's had a chance to get his feet wet with one year as OC - running a lousy WCO for Mike Pettine in Cleveland, with Josh McCown, Johnny Manziel and Austin Davis taking turns at QB. FWIW, the Browns' offense was even worse this year.
I was impressed with Carson Wentz as a rookie. I don't know how much credit DiFilippo deserves, as opposed to Doug Pederson, or Wentz's native ability. Anything that disrupt's Wentz's progress is good; maybe swiping his position coach would qualify.
in game planning. We know that he doesn't call the plays. Until I see anything else, the state of the offense is in McAdoo's hands. I'd love to being someone like Norv Turner in, but will Mac be willing to cede control?
My main issue with Sullivan is that he reeks of a front office (i.e. - ownership) hire. Let Mac hire who he wants. It's his ass on the line.
is look to copy the Cowboys model. I think that's a lot more responsible for their recent success (well, that and all the picks on the OL) than anything else.
They went out and hired several ex-coaches and made them responsible for different elements of the game, giving them AHC level titles.
Is that really what they did though? The two former head coaches are the offensive and defensive coordinators, Linehan and Marinelli.
By the way, both were disastrous head coaches, with a combined record of 21-63. Dallas hired them for their proven skill as coordinators. The great thing about their failure in St. Louis and Detroit is that Dallas doesn't need to worry about anyone offering them the top job again. (OK, Linehan might be an EXTREME long shot.)
As I wrote in previous threads, the Sullivan/McAdoo structure makes no sense in that they espouse completely different systems. Sullivan runs the Gilbride vertical offense while Ben runs the Mike Holgrem/Andy Reid style WCO. McAdoo needs to put down the Denny's menu and hire an OC in his image. I like Sullivan and more importantly so does Eli. Get rid of this Cigretti lapdog and put Sullivan back as QB coach. Give him some kind of inflated title like Assistant HC-QB's. And yes I'd love to see them take a hard steer at McCoy.
generalist who can see the forest through the trees and get the team ready to execute classic plays when trends make them useful again.
A former head coach possibly.
Its one thing to say, 'this is what we do - lets wait until we have the horses or until the league trends make it work again' and yet, if the opposing DL in set wide and you cannot take advantage of that by quickly ripping one up the middle, than maybe you forgot to practice and plan for the basics.
is look to copy the Cowboys model. I think that's a lot more responsible for their recent success (well, that and all the picks on the OL) than anything else.
They went out and hired several ex-coaches and made them responsible for different elements of the game, giving them AHC level titles.
Is that really what they did though? The two former head coaches are the offensive and defensive coordinators, Linehan and Marinelli.
By the way, both were disastrous head coaches, with a combined record of 21-63. Dallas hired them for their proven skill as coordinators. The great thing about their failure in St. Louis and Detroit is that Dallas doesn't need to worry about anyone offering them the top job again. (OK, Linehan might be an EXTREME long shot.)
They broke it up - coming up with 'passing game coordinator' and 'running game coordinator', and hiring ex-HCs (guys who were good enough at OC/DC to merit elevation to a top spot somewhere) in Bill Callahan (since departed), Scott Linehan, Rod Marinelli.
No, none of them were ever great HC's, but that's not what you're hiring them for. They were good enough coordinators and showed enough to be considered HC material. We have something similar in Spags on D. Breaking down one spot into two (OC into Passing and Run coordinators) can be counterproductive, but can also be useful given the limited amount of practice time.
In short - I liked the Giants increasing the size of their coaching staff prior to the '16 season. I think they should consider going a bit further.
But, along with that is the stipulation that McAdoo relieve himself of playcalling and all other OC duties. As HC, he could and should obviously be involved in personnel decisions, gameplanning, etc. But, he should not be the person in charge and neither should Sullivan.
RE: RE: hard to blame the OC when the HC is calling the plays. I agree with
those who say that McAdoo should be allowed to hire an OC who shares his philosophy.
I'm concerned that the HC is calling those plays because he doesn't trust the OC to do it for him.
Ditto. Plus, I think the offense was a big enough problem in enough games and for the season as a whole to warrant a new OC.
Some mention Spags last year as a comparison and defense of not removing the OC. I have two responses to that. One, Spags has a very positive history with the Giants as equity. Two, I thought he should have been fired last year. This year, he did a better job than I expected, but I think a little too much credit is going to him. He had a lot of talent thanks to the draft and FA being heavily focused on the D. While I think his job should be very secure after this season, I also still wouldn't annoint him the second coming, expect him to be the next HC, extend his contract, or block him from leaving for another job. With this talent, the defense should be in the top half of the league every season.
I'd say no. I think the poor performance is rooted in a number of different factors.
First of all - proper conservative playcalling. In other words, when you have a dominant defense and you have a lead, you don't take unnecessary risks that you would otherwise take when your defense sucks and you can't hold a lead. All things being equal the improved defense should point to reduced offensive output, imo.
Secondly - McAdoo calling plays leading to completely new objectives on offense. An OC would be motivated to hit all their offensive goals (like averaging 27PPG, as McAdoo indicated was the offense's goal to start the season). A HC has different, more important goals (like making the playoffs and double-digit wins). All things being equal switching the playcalling duties from OC to HC should point to reduced offensive output, imo.
Third, shifts in practice philosophy focusing on developing young talent vs. execution that McAdoo pointed out in the beginning of the year would point to more young players contributing early at the cost of efficiency and execution.
If we had the world's greatest offensive coordinator we might have expected to take a small step backward from where we ended last year on offense. So it's very difficult to pin all the blame on Sullivan.
Having said that - we should see some track record of success as OC. I haven't really seen that in Sullivan's resume. He seemed to do very poorly in TB, and now our offense did extremely poorly with him. While he's not calling the plays, he would be in charge of designing the offensive gameplans and in making adjustments throughout the game. I'm not sure we saw any indication that he's really good enough in the spot to merit the position of OC of the NYG.
So, I would replace him, but I would not have hired him to begin with.
But there is an aspect involved with the Offense that needs to be changed. You can't leave things as they are after the putrid output this O achieved this season.
Exactly. It would be pure scapegoating to blame all the offenses woes onSullivan. But the unit underperformed and the OC usually takes the hit for that, especially when he has a thin resume like Sullivan
Poor offensive performance this year, in no small part due to being with the same personnel grouping 95% of the time.
The guy has never presided as OC over a decent offense. McAdoo says we're going to look long and hard at everything, well, if we're OK with improving underperforming players, no reason why coaches or coordinators shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny.
McAdoo is a much better game manager than I expected, and I think he's part of the future of the organization. His offensive play calling (however much he leads Eli) leaves something to be desired. Given that, I don't know whether a new OC would be able to give the offense more variety. A lot of people talk about how the personnel was too limiting that we were forced to be more conservative than we might be with other personnel. If that is the case, is there little value in bringing in a new OC? Is it just a matter of bringing in playmakers? At what point does the OC have a responsibility to rejuvenate the offense or should we expect the OC to do so? Is our OC a relatively superfluous job given McAdoo's function?
A little easier to "manage" the game when your 200 million dollar defense is pitching shutouts.
McAdoo should either let Sullivan call the plays or hire somebody else who will. Only an instinctive genius could do a good job calling plays or defensive sets while being a head coach, too.
McAdoo is a much better game manager than I expected, and I think he's part of the future of the organization. His offensive play calling (however much he leads Eli) leaves something to be desired. Given that, I don't know whether a new OC would be able to give the offense more variety. A lot of people talk about how the personnel was too limiting that we were forced to be more conservative than we might be with other personnel. If that is the case, is there little value in bringing in a new OC? Is it just a matter of bringing in playmakers? At what point does the OC have a responsibility to rejuvenate the offense or should we expect the OC to do so? Is our OC a relatively superfluous job given McAdoo's function?
A little easier to "manage" the game when your 200 million dollar defense is pitching shutouts.
So? Coughlin blew plenty of leads when the O was top 10 and could have done a much better job in terms of actual game management. McAdoo doesn't struggle with this aspect of calling games.
Your posts rely on the idea that Sullivan is essentially meaningless to the offense. My ppint is if that is a fact and the O struggled, why not bring in an OC who actually challenges McAdoo and helps the offense grow?
A quality everyone stresses of McAdoo is his ability to listen to questions and to listen to all the voices around him. Why not supplement those voices with a proven offensive mind? Rather than retain a mediocre OC simply because he's essentially a seat filler?
RE: If the Giants fire the guy calling the plays then McAdoo
would have to fire himself. Sullivan is basically there to give McAdoo his juice box and talk to the players. You all know McAdoo is calling the plays in his offense why do you constantly pretend like it is someone else?
Seriously in all the games this season how many times did the television crew even cut to Sullivan? There's your answer.
IMO there's some things missing in the conversation between games. Probably not the best to bounce ideas off of someone who is a disciple of an entirely different offense. Let's get someone that's more versed in the WCO and see what happens.
'You weren't saying that last season when the same guys were here.'...
But, along with that is the stipulation that McAdoo relieve himself of playcalling and all other OC duties. As HC, he could and should obviously be involved in personnel decisions, gameplanning, etc. But, he should not be the person in charge and neither should Sullivan.
I agree with this. I really think McAdoo, while mostly on point with game management decisions, suffered as a play caller due to sharing the duties of HC too. There was very little creativity in our offensive play calling...and chatter from opponents that we were easy to prepare for defensively, IIRC.
Running the offense is not just drawing up plays and getting the ball to your playmakers - it's having a strategic plan to avoid being predictable. We really suffered on that front this year. Seemed like every opponent knew what was coming and defended accordingly.
and the only reason why we made the playoffs was because the defense was amazing. We cannot expect that defense to perform at the same high level all season long next year. If this offense does not improve significantly, we are not making the playoffs.
So, if you go into this season without making some changes (whatever they are), then you are ignoring the problem and will most likely have the same results offensively. Something else to note is that we did not have a major injury on the offense this year other than Vereen who fortunately was not playing every snap anyway. What happens if we lose Perkins or God forbid OBJ? We are fucked because we have nothing else... so we cannot go into the season with the status quo
They don't execute the simple things well enough on offense to be good.
Generally true...but we showed very little variety in lineups and formations. Now, much was limited due to personell...no true FB or quality blocking TE, no RB with speed to threaten the outside, OL we couldnt depend on to give Eli enough time for deep combo routes to develop...so part of our opponents ease is stopping us was talent limitations, of course
McAdoo is a much better game manager than I expected, and I think he's part of the future of the organization. His offensive play calling (however much he leads Eli) leaves something to be desired. Given that, I don't know whether a new OC would be able to give the offense more variety. A lot of people talk about how the personnel was too limiting that we were forced to be more conservative than we might be with other personnel. If that is the case, is there little value in bringing in a new OC? Is it just a matter of bringing in playmakers? At what point does the OC have a responsibility to rejuvenate the offense or should we expect the OC to do so? Is our OC a relatively superfluous job given McAdoo's function?
A little easier to "manage" the game when your 200 million dollar defense is pitching shutouts.
So? Coughlin blew plenty of leads when the O was top 10 and could have done a much better job in terms of actual game management. McAdoo doesn't struggle with this aspect of calling games.
Your posts rely on the idea that Sullivan is essentially meaningless to the offense. My ppint is if that is a fact and the O struggled, why not bring in an OC who actually challenges McAdoo and helps the offense grow?
A quality everyone stresses of McAdoo is his ability to listen to questions and to listen to all the voices around him. Why not supplement those voices with a proven offensive mind? Rather than retain a mediocre OC simply because he's essentially a seat filler?
Yes, that's why we spent $200 million on defensive players- the coach is the one that blew the leads.
I agree. There is no need for Sullivan. He was only here in case McAdoo imploded as HC. He didn't so there is no need for Sullivan. On the other hand, people here are making him the scapegoat for the woeful offense.
RE: 'You weren't saying that last season when the same guys were here.'...
he's been the invisible man all season. Sullivan pictured - ( New Window )
In fairness, nobody is putting all the blame on Sullivan. Or even the playcalling on Sullivan, since he doesn't do that.
Most criticisms of Sullivan are actually criticisms of BM; he's calling plays in addition to coaching the team, and maybe that's too much to ask. The issue is that for whatever reason, he didn't trust Sullivan to do so. Maybe it's time that he either hands off to Sullivan, or to a suitable replacement.
RE: RE: 'You weren't saying that last season when the same guys were here.'...
When McAdoo was named HC it was the idea that basically he'll run the offense and Spags will run the defense. Him being the play caller is tied tight to him being the HC. Zero blame goes to Sullivan. This is McAdoos offense ran by McAdoo. There is no one else to blame but he also deserves a chance to fix it as Spags got his chance to fix the defense.
Coordinated a lot of success across a number of situations. Won a playoff game with Tim Tebow. Was a primary mover in the revival of Peyton Manning in Denver. Returned Phil Rivers to some elite level production.
Schematically speaking, always did a clever job of using motion and formation to confuse the D and create space for less than spectacular WR groups.
Is he philosophically consistent with McAdoo? Not really. And McCoy has enough clout to go somewhere -- such as a return to Denver under Vance Joseph -- where he'd have complete control of the O.
This raises an important question: what type of head coach is McAdoo? Could he ever be a Carroll or Tomlin-type who excels at organizing a program and delegating to his assistants? Basically the CEO cheerleader. Or is he stubborn enough to insist on having his fingerprints over the entire O while we drown in our own ineptitude?
I think everything needs to be reviewed and there are some legitimate concerns about our offence and some things will need to be addressed. The question will be how do we fix it.
Talent is an issue and I am pretty confident that will be addressed going forward. But the offence did perform considerably worse than last year. Eli wasn't as sharp as last year either.
You aren't going to shake up things unless you can improve the staff. I do like the idea of moving Mike Sullivan back to QB coach, Eli has performed well with his guidance and we may have a young QB to develop. It really depends on who we could get as OC imho. One potential option that I like is Chip Kelly, I think he could be the X's and O's kind of guy we need.
I also think we should consider replacing Craig Johnson as RB coach if we can bring in someone like Anthony Lynn.
Forgot about that. Tough guy to let go...
The guy has never presided as OC over a decent offense. McAdoo says we're going to look long and hard at everything, well, if we're OK with improving underperforming players, no reason why coaches or coordinators shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny.
It seems as if McAdoo is doing the playcalling..
so if thats the case then why would you replace Sullivan as the OC?
So why fire the guy?
Seriously in all the games this season how many times did the television crew even cut to Sullivan? There's your answer.
To the question I have no idea if they should change the OC, I ll let that up to McAdoo.
To the question I have no idea if they should change the OC, I ll let that up to McAdoo.
Spags had a successful run here that included a SB victory and a strong follow up campaign in 2008.
What has Sullivan ever done that makes someone think he's capable of being an OC?
I think we've got the same situation here. It's McAdoo's offense that the Giants are running. Sullivan is the OC in name only. He doesn't deserve to be fired but he could well take the hit for McAdoo's play calling.
When the offense turned ugly in Gilbride's last season, he was very forthcoming during an interview (during the season, not after he was forced into retirement)... he said something like when you have glaring weaknesses in talent, no matter what adjustments you make, teams quickly catch on and counter those adjustments. You can make an argument he was deflecting blame and looking after his own butt, but it makes sense.
Giants faced cover 2 defense mostly. The way to beat that (not an expert, but according to everything I read/heard) is a good running game & with a decent TE to threaten the middle of the field. Giants had neither. And to top it off, they had a slot WR, coming back from serious injuries playing outside.
Nassib is better suited to this offense, which many suspected was a significant motivator for the organization in moving in this direction (players like Victor Cruz publicly said something to this effect when McAdoo was hired).
McAdoo is here for the future, and if he continues having success he'll get his own OC and QB (Nassib or someone else) pretty soon through attrition. He's not even 40 yet!
Terrible Mickey Mouse offense ended the season.
Current staff must be deaf, dumb and blind.
Does Mike Sullivan "deserve" to be fired? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I couldn't care less about the justice of his fate. I just want the Giants to have the best possible coordinator for the offense they are running and the talent they are likely to have in 2017. While I don't have a list of smart, up-and-coming, WCO-savvy coaches, it's hard to believe that there isn't a better fit out there than Sullivan.
I'm concerned that the HC is calling those plays because he doesn't trust the OC to do it for him.
I don't think he was covering his ass. It reads more as an accurate assessment than anything else. Instead of a read and react option route where Eli and the receiver are taking advantage of the DB by making the same reads inside the play, the receivers were getting taken out at the stem of the route and forced out of the driver's seat on that decision - that's when Eli and the receivers looked so out of whack. The option on the route is the exploit and where the "complexity" came from, so for a defense it makes sense to not let the receiver get to the point where the receiver can execute their downfield read. Cut off the decision. That's the counter and that's the adjustments teams made to defeat it.
Mike McCarthy runs his offensive staff as a braintrust (with himself at the top), and rotates the coaches through different roles. Van Pelt has previously coached the Green Bay RBs, and divided his time between WRs and QBs in 2015. He's not all that high on the official org chart, with AHC-Offense Tom Clements and OC Edgar Bennett outranking him. So Sullivan's job would be a clear promotion.
Van Pelt's one season as Offensive Coordinator in Buffalo was a mess, but so was the whole team. Van Pelt replaced Turk Schonert just before the start of the season, and Dick Jauron was fired in November. (Our old friend Perry Fewell took over, earning respect around the League for his work as Interim HC on a sinking ship.) The next year, he seems to have done a pretty good job with Josh Freeman in Tampa, though I think he was still around when Freeman regressed in 2011.
I'm sure there are other, stronger possibilities. If McAdoo were reaching back to his roots, though, Van Pelt would rate an interview.
They went out and hired several ex-coaches and made them responsible for different elements of the game, giving them AHC level titles.
You don't have to can Sullivan, or even demote him. Go out and hire someone good and make him the 'passing coordinator' or some other dopey title. Having another brain in the room, so long as they're all on the same page, can't hurt, and there's no cap for coaches. Get guys that can work together, and get them to work.
I was impressed with Carson Wentz as a rookie. I don't know how much credit DiFilippo deserves, as opposed to Doug Pederson, or Wentz's native ability. Anything that disrupt's Wentz's progress is good; maybe swiping his position coach would qualify.
My main issue with Sullivan is that he reeks of a front office (i.e. - ownership) hire. Let Mac hire who he wants. It's his ass on the line.
They went out and hired several ex-coaches and made them responsible for different elements of the game, giving them AHC level titles.
Is that really what they did though? The two former head coaches are the offensive and defensive coordinators, Linehan and Marinelli.
By the way, both were disastrous head coaches, with a combined record of 21-63. Dallas hired them for their proven skill as coordinators. The great thing about their failure in St. Louis and Detroit is that Dallas doesn't need to worry about anyone offering them the top job again. (OK, Linehan might be an EXTREME long shot.)
A former head coach possibly.
Its one thing to say, 'this is what we do - lets wait until we have the horses or until the league trends make it work again' and yet, if the opposing DL in set wide and you cannot take advantage of that by quickly ripping one up the middle, than maybe you forgot to practice and plan for the basics.
Quote:
is look to copy the Cowboys model. I think that's a lot more responsible for their recent success (well, that and all the picks on the OL) than anything else.
They went out and hired several ex-coaches and made them responsible for different elements of the game, giving them AHC level titles.
Is that really what they did though? The two former head coaches are the offensive and defensive coordinators, Linehan and Marinelli.
By the way, both were disastrous head coaches, with a combined record of 21-63. Dallas hired them for their proven skill as coordinators. The great thing about their failure in St. Louis and Detroit is that Dallas doesn't need to worry about anyone offering them the top job again. (OK, Linehan might be an EXTREME long shot.)
They broke it up - coming up with 'passing game coordinator' and 'running game coordinator', and hiring ex-HCs (guys who were good enough at OC/DC to merit elevation to a top spot somewhere) in Bill Callahan (since departed), Scott Linehan, Rod Marinelli.
No, none of them were ever great HC's, but that's not what you're hiring them for. They were good enough coordinators and showed enough to be considered HC material. We have something similar in Spags on D. Breaking down one spot into two (OC into Passing and Run coordinators) can be counterproductive, but can also be useful given the limited amount of practice time.
In short - I liked the Giants increasing the size of their coaching staff prior to the '16 season. I think they should consider going a bit further.
Quote:
those who say that McAdoo should be allowed to hire an OC who shares his philosophy.
I'm concerned that the HC is calling those plays because he doesn't trust the OC to do it for him.
Some mention Spags last year as a comparison and defense of not removing the OC. I have two responses to that. One, Spags has a very positive history with the Giants as equity. Two, I thought he should have been fired last year. This year, he did a better job than I expected, but I think a little too much credit is going to him. He had a lot of talent thanks to the draft and FA being heavily focused on the D. While I think his job should be very secure after this season, I also still wouldn't annoint him the second coming, expect him to be the next HC, extend his contract, or block him from leaving for another job. With this talent, the defense should be in the top half of the league every season.
First of all - proper conservative playcalling. In other words, when you have a dominant defense and you have a lead, you don't take unnecessary risks that you would otherwise take when your defense sucks and you can't hold a lead. All things being equal the improved defense should point to reduced offensive output, imo.
Secondly - McAdoo calling plays leading to completely new objectives on offense. An OC would be motivated to hit all their offensive goals (like averaging 27PPG, as McAdoo indicated was the offense's goal to start the season). A HC has different, more important goals (like making the playoffs and double-digit wins). All things being equal switching the playcalling duties from OC to HC should point to reduced offensive output, imo.
Third, shifts in practice philosophy focusing on developing young talent vs. execution that McAdoo pointed out in the beginning of the year would point to more young players contributing early at the cost of efficiency and execution.
If we had the world's greatest offensive coordinator we might have expected to take a small step backward from where we ended last year on offense. So it's very difficult to pin all the blame on Sullivan.
Having said that - we should see some track record of success as OC. I haven't really seen that in Sullivan's resume. He seemed to do very poorly in TB, and now our offense did extremely poorly with him. While he's not calling the plays, he would be in charge of designing the offensive gameplans and in making adjustments throughout the game. I'm not sure we saw any indication that he's really good enough in the spot to merit the position of OC of the NYG.
So, I would replace him, but I would not have hired him to begin with.
Exactly. It would be pure scapegoating to blame all the offenses woes onSullivan. But the unit underperformed and the OC usually takes the hit for that, especially when he has a thin resume like Sullivan
The guy has never presided as OC over a decent offense. McAdoo says we're going to look long and hard at everything, well, if we're OK with improving underperforming players, no reason why coaches or coordinators shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny.
So why fire the guy?
Terrible Mickey Mouse offense ended the season.
Current staff must be deaf, dumb and blind.
Sullivan pictured - ( New Window )
Quote:
McAdoo is a much better game manager than I expected, and I think he's part of the future of the organization. His offensive play calling (however much he leads Eli) leaves something to be desired. Given that, I don't know whether a new OC would be able to give the offense more variety. A lot of people talk about how the personnel was too limiting that we were forced to be more conservative than we might be with other personnel. If that is the case, is there little value in bringing in a new OC? Is it just a matter of bringing in playmakers? At what point does the OC have a responsibility to rejuvenate the offense or should we expect the OC to do so? Is our OC a relatively superfluous job given McAdoo's function?
A little easier to "manage" the game when your 200 million dollar defense is pitching shutouts.
So? Coughlin blew plenty of leads when the O was top 10 and could have done a much better job in terms of actual game management. McAdoo doesn't struggle with this aspect of calling games.
Your posts rely on the idea that Sullivan is essentially meaningless to the offense. My ppint is if that is a fact and the O struggled, why not bring in an OC who actually challenges McAdoo and helps the offense grow?
A quality everyone stresses of McAdoo is his ability to listen to questions and to listen to all the voices around him. Why not supplement those voices with a proven offensive mind? Rather than retain a mediocre OC simply because he's essentially a seat filler?
Seriously in all the games this season how many times did the television crew even cut to Sullivan? There's your answer.
IMO there's some things missing in the conversation between games. Probably not the best to bounce ideas off of someone who is a disciple of an entirely different offense. Let's get someone that's more versed in the WCO and see what happens.
I agree with this. I really think McAdoo, while mostly on point with game management decisions, suffered as a play caller due to sharing the duties of HC too. There was very little creativity in our offensive play calling...and chatter from opponents that we were easy to prepare for defensively, IIRC.
Running the offense is not just drawing up plays and getting the ball to your playmakers - it's having a strategic plan to avoid being predictable. We really suffered on that front this year. Seemed like every opponent knew what was coming and defended accordingly.
So, if you go into this season without making some changes (whatever they are), then you are ignoring the problem and will most likely have the same results offensively. Something else to note is that we did not have a major injury on the offense this year other than Vereen who fortunately was not playing every snap anyway. What happens if we lose Perkins or God forbid OBJ? We are fucked because we have nothing else... so we cannot go into the season with the status quo
Generally true...but we showed very little variety in lineups and formations. Now, much was limited due to personell...no true FB or quality blocking TE, no RB with speed to threaten the outside, OL we couldnt depend on to give Eli enough time for deep combo routes to develop...so part of our opponents ease is stopping us was talent limitations, of course
Quote:
In comment 13320877 adamg said:
Quote:
McAdoo is a much better game manager than I expected, and I think he's part of the future of the organization. His offensive play calling (however much he leads Eli) leaves something to be desired. Given that, I don't know whether a new OC would be able to give the offense more variety. A lot of people talk about how the personnel was too limiting that we were forced to be more conservative than we might be with other personnel. If that is the case, is there little value in bringing in a new OC? Is it just a matter of bringing in playmakers? At what point does the OC have a responsibility to rejuvenate the offense or should we expect the OC to do so? Is our OC a relatively superfluous job given McAdoo's function?
A little easier to "manage" the game when your 200 million dollar defense is pitching shutouts.
So? Coughlin blew plenty of leads when the O was top 10 and could have done a much better job in terms of actual game management. McAdoo doesn't struggle with this aspect of calling games.
Your posts rely on the idea that Sullivan is essentially meaningless to the offense. My ppint is if that is a fact and the O struggled, why not bring in an OC who actually challenges McAdoo and helps the offense grow?
A quality everyone stresses of McAdoo is his ability to listen to questions and to listen to all the voices around him. Why not supplement those voices with a proven offensive mind? Rather than retain a mediocre OC simply because he's essentially a seat filler?
I agree. There is no need for Sullivan. He was only here in case McAdoo imploded as HC. He didn't so there is no need for Sullivan. On the other hand, people here are making him the scapegoat for the woeful offense.
In fairness, nobody is putting all the blame on Sullivan. Or even the playcalling on Sullivan, since he doesn't do that.
Most criticisms of Sullivan are actually criticisms of BM; he's calling plays in addition to coaching the team, and maybe that's too much to ask. The issue is that for whatever reason, he didn't trust Sullivan to do so. Maybe it's time that he either hands off to Sullivan, or to a suitable replacement.
Quote:
As usual you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Although that's no surprise to anyone. Kudos.
Yeah ok. Thanks for the kudos!
So you don't think McAdoo managed the game better in 16 than Coughlin did in 15?
Schematically speaking, always did a clever job of using motion and formation to confuse the D and create space for less than spectacular WR groups.
Is he philosophically consistent with McAdoo? Not really. And McCoy has enough clout to go somewhere -- such as a return to Denver under Vance Joseph -- where he'd have complete control of the O.
This raises an important question: what type of head coach is McAdoo? Could he ever be a Carroll or Tomlin-type who excels at organizing a program and delegating to his assistants? Basically the CEO cheerleader. Or is he stubborn enough to insist on having his fingerprints over the entire O while we drown in our own ineptitude?
Talent is an issue and I am pretty confident that will be addressed going forward. But the offence did perform considerably worse than last year. Eli wasn't as sharp as last year either.
You aren't going to shake up things unless you can improve the staff. I do like the idea of moving Mike Sullivan back to QB coach, Eli has performed well with his guidance and we may have a young QB to develop. It really depends on who we could get as OC imho. One potential option that I like is Chip Kelly, I think he could be the X's and O's kind of guy we need.
I also think we should consider replacing Craig Johnson as RB coach if we can bring in someone like Anthony Lynn.