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.
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.