Is Giants philosophy the main problem with the OL?

Sure that Snee was among the strongest men in the league.

Flowers' feet are too slow to be a LT, Jerry and Newhouse are JAGs, Richburg regressed (I wonder if he was hurt), and Pugh should be the LT unless someone better comes along.

Snee, Suebert, and Flowers were the exact opposite of finesse players as was McKenzie. I wouldn't classify Diehl as a finesse guy.

But they were also brutally strong at the point.

Snee was a monster in particular.

I may be in the minority, but Flowers would make a great RG. Hard to move a top 10 pick to G, but... he could grate there.

Putting on more raw bulk/strength but the issue is fairly simple: Flowers, Newhouse, Jerry, Hart, etc are, to be fair, below average players. We've employed 2 fairly respected OL coaches the last 2 seasons (Flats and Solari) and the results are poor. Poor players=poor OL.

And I think Seubert as well.

This is a prescient observation. Some of this is just math. The Giants don't place enough emphasis on blocking done by players other than the o-line. The Cowboy line couldn't be effective with just the 5 linemen blocking . The Giants wides don't block. Their tight ends aren't particularly good blockers. They seldom use 2 tights; never three & McAdoo considers the fullback to be the Nehru Jacket of NFL fashion.
Three wides. A TE & a back. Even against thinned out boxes, there is no commitment to the running game. Another matter of philosophy is living in the gun. It was readily apparent that the Giants ran better with Ever Playoff Eli under center. They actually run the ball into the end zone from the +5 and in quite well if they would just stay with it.


Sunday watch the Cowboys multiple TE formations & the FB. You can't run with 5 people blocking . That is philosophy and this was a great thread start .

In comment 13320922 GiantsRage2007 said:

Quote:

But they were also brutally strong at the point. Snee was a monster in particular. I may be in the minority, but Flowers would make a great RG. Hard to move a top 10 pick to G, but... he could grate there.

But if the choice is a good guard or terrible LT (among worst in league) then I think we should move him.

That's why Green Bay has struggled to run the ball since McCarthy has been there

Eric wrote this is his review f the Steelers game. Pretty telling don't you think?:

"But you also have to wonder about the Giants personnel acquisition versus scheme. For example, Flowers’ strength is his run blocking. He can muscle and maul as good as anyone in the NFL (think Jumbo Elliott when he played left tackle for the Giants). But the Giants run a pass-centric, finesse offense that runs the ball as more of after-thought out of the shotgun. Imagine Flowers playing left tackle for the Steelers. I bet you he would be a heck of a player in their scheme."

as much as successfully working as a unit. That 2008 team marched right down the field so often and that OL wasn't super physical.

Dallas controls the clock but they're not nearly as physical as those early 90's Cowboys lines either.

After spending two 1 s and a 2 on offensive linemen to be having this discussion

In comment 13320962 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

Eric wrote this is his review f the Steelers game. Pretty telling don't you think?: "But you also have to wonder about the Giants personnel acquisition versus scheme. For example, Flowers’ strength is his run blocking. He can muscle and maul as good as anyone in the NFL (think Jumbo Elliott when he played left tackle for the Giants). But the Giants run a pass-centric, finesse offense that runs the ball as more of after-thought out of the shotgun. Imagine Flowers playing left tackle for the Steelers. I bet you he would be a heck of a player in their scheme."

Really then if I was Reese I would be talking to the Steelers right now about a trade because I would take it in a heart beat. Right now you can have our #1 pick. That dog don't hunt period.

.

This is a problem that that many teams face and the Giants too. If you have talented players you need to get them in the right spots.

1980s Roberts and Moore drafted for for positions that did not best suit their skills. Riesenberg too.

2000s Diehl was very movable but they needed to find a spot for Seubert and they needed to add MacKenzie.

Now they have never given Pugh a real tryout at the position he was drafted for and haven't tried Flowers at another spot. Because they didn't make these moves, the same questions that existed 2 years ago still need to be answered or they need aLT and a RT.

Giants need to lose the tackle spot & go to a four guard front, that way when they kick a 1st round tackle to a guard spot, it's not a big deal.

In comment 13321006 joeinpa said:

Quote:

After spending two 1 s and a 2 on offensive linemen to be having this discussion

it's beyond those three. There isn't even enough depth to fill the starting 5 spots competently. The fact they have to play Flowers at LT b/c there is literally nobody on the roster better than he for LT. The entire line has one backup named Hart who is was a late round pick and 21 years old. There is no depth. It's just a few bodies like Beatty that can't even play. At least the defense has bodies and backups. The OL hasn't had shit for 5 years.

''you have to draft to the scheme and in some cases the Giants haven't
Victor in CT : 8:38 am : link : reply

Eric wrote this is his review f the Steelers game. Pretty telling don't you think?:

"But you also have to wonder about the Giants personnel acquisition versus scheme. For example, Flowers’ strength is his run blocking. He can muscle and maul as good as anyone in the NFL (think Jumbo Elliott when he played left tackle for the Giants). But the Giants run a pass-centric, finesse offense that runs the ball as more of after-thought out of the shotgun. Imagine Flowers playing left tackle for the Steelers. I bet you he would be a heck of a player in their scheme."

''

Which might be a horrible way to build mojo in rookie offensive linesmen; i.e. the near constant reversion to shotgun and 'running as an after thought'.

I mean, there is probably a universe of power run plays out there somewhere in a vault, and a universe of under center formations and even those with the running back close in as well.

It is as if in recruiting some linesmen they excused themselves from drafting bigger than average or more powerful ones, due to the idea that the 'scheme does not require it' (which would be silly, if true) and in other players while recruiting seeming power(flowers, maybe hart) asked them to start out relying mostly on the weakest part of their game, 'catchers' mode pass protection style' which fails to take advantage of such power as they may have (balance being the issue with flowers right now IMHO, moreso than plain power)

There are probably a host of other schematic problems with too much shotgun as well, such as the propensity of DLs these days, in combatting the shotgun trend, to rush 5 and some from wide 9 or what have you, taking advantage of the larger (OT/QB/OT) triangle, or pocket.

Problem is that if you don't practice enough / recruit enough variety in the old school power game runs, or don't practice enough in play action from under center, if you typically revert to shotgun and 3 wides in long or critical situations, you may never generate the needed change-up possibility as a reality.

our outright refusal to consistently run the ball with Eli under Center is ridiculous.

Why did it take us most of the season to start mixing in different run plays, run behind Flowers, etc.?

Most of the season was the delayed Shotgun handoff which we finally started using different plays late in the year.

These aren't the case of unraveling your playbook slowly, these are basic plays that should've been used from the beginning to give us some variation. I'm just not sold on McAdoo yet, not even close.

especially those with the RB in close as well, and which are designed to happen zip/quick, at the first guard contact, for example, is that they may really negate the wide 9 and the DEs fairly well, and force the DTs and LBs to stay in run mode.

For this reason, and in this league right now, those plays may be better for play action than shotgun based apparent runs.

in addition, and for the same reasons, if teams adjust to D line in tight, QB outside runs and reverses would possibly be more effective.

Old school.

from under center a few times during the season, seemed to have good results, then just kept on experimenting with complex slow to develop runs, outside runs, as the season went on.

Mostly mentioned already, but IMO, in order . . .

You have 3 guys on the OL you can build around, and one of them is playing out of position. Flowers needs to either show Landon Collins-like improvement at OLT, or move. I know which one I'd bet on at this point.

The right side guys are the weak link. Cannot run block, barely adequate in protection.

Staying in 11 formation 95% of the time is bat-shit crazy.

No decent TEs. Adams has promise, but the other two couldn't start on any other team in the league -- and they are PART of the reason they're stuck in 11 formation.

No FB. The Giants don't think they need one, but with these other problems, even a journeyman like Hynoski would have made a big difference in the run game
-----------

History shows Reese PREFERS to fix the OL via FA rather than drafting OLs high, but he's obviously use both approaches over time. We'll see how it shakes out this year.

He fixed the D last offseason. This year he needs to fix the O.

is that the Giants have had the most success in the SB era when they have had toughness/power on the o-line and at RB. I don't believe we have either right now.

This is not to say that we were a running team in 07 or 11 but we had an oline and RBs that were tough. I think it is somewhat of a philosophy / mindset of the team also.

Oh yeah, and to sound like a broken victrola, we always had good to great TEs which in our current offense I think would help wonders.

almost all the passes came off 3 step drops to get the ball out quick. Very little 5 or 7 step drops (deep routes), and almost NO play-action (one of Eli's best things) -- all because the OL couldn't be trusted to hold long enough for those plays to develop.

That's why is was so difficult watching this putrid offense.