While we're all excited about the Giants offense being more explosive with the acquisitions of Evan Engram and Brandon Marshall, plus the continued development of Paul Perkins, Sterling Shepard, and Jerrell Adams, among others, it's worth noting that this Spring the Giants practiced their short-yardage/goal line offense using a Fullback at times, in addition to multiple Tight Ends. They made no secret about it, either.
I like the thought of more creativity, more innovation on offense, regardless of who's actually calling the plays. Keeping opposing defenses guessing is a good thing, and the Giants have the skill players to do just that. However, there's something to be said for telegraphing your offensive intentions, knowing that there's not a damned thing a defense can do to stop you. What can be more demoralizing than that?
I'm not alone in thinking that the lack of true Fullback really hampered the Giants offense last year. It wasn't the only reason the offense suffered, but it was certainly a factor. This year, the Giants signed TE/FB Rhett Ellison, a very sound blocker, prior to the draft, and signed UDFA FB Shane Smith, also a very sound blocker, after the draft. In addition, they have Jacob Huesman competing at FB.
I don't expect the 2017 Giants to resemble the 1990 Giants in any way, shape, or form, however, I can envision a return to the power running game at least on a limited basis...and I think that's a good thing, too.
The best Giants O-Line in recent memory...the one that helped two RBs reach the 1,000 yard mark...was aided and abetted by a 6-3, 266 pound FB who was a second-team All-Pro that year.
It seems to me that the worm is turning back just a bit, although it's still going to be a "passing league" for the most part.
That said - I'm watching Ben. I want to see a complete NFL offense. He's had a legit personnel excuse - no more. Never heard a team staying in the same group 95%. He's now got the players to run a myriad of different sets and packages, give the D a lot to prepare for and keep them on their toes.
At least, late in the year, McAdoo started lining up Eli under center and running behind Flowers. And it worked. The all-shotgun approach hinders the run game.
Nowadays, he says, the talent level is too even, and you can't just overpower guys if they know what you're doing. You have to do something to create a moment of hesitation/decision in the other team. That moment can be a fraction of a second, but you use that fraction of a second to get an advantage.
So the Parcells era smashmouth, the who-cares-if-you-know-what-we-are-doing-we-are-just-going-to-beat-you-anyway thing is probably gone for good.
One advantage the Cowboys had was that they were built to be a power running team, and most defenses aren't built to stop that anymore. Defenses don't have the personnel for that; they have fast, light linebackers and pass rushers instead of run stoppers. The Giants, however, are built to stop a power running game -- among other things.
Much rather have Engram playing H-back on run downs, and either way downs, and TE on passing downs. I believe with our personnel we should be looking to spread the defense out, not pack the defense in.
Also, I don't like the cut we will have to make in order to keep a very limited true FB.
As I said in my OP, I don't expect the 2017 Giants to resemble the 1990 Giants, but it's not that long ago that the Giants had great success with Madison Hedgecock, and then with Henry Hynoski. And just last year they planned on using Will Johnson and/or Nikita Whitlock. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they'll keep Smith or Huesman this year.
As for the impact on the roster as a whole, it's really negligible. If they plan on using a Fullback, they'll find a spot for him, even if it means going with one less offensive skill player.
Your comment about 2 1k rushers with an all pro FB is disingenuous. Everyone knows the OL unit was the best in the league that year.
Et tu, blueblood?
Your comment about 2 1k rushers with an all pro FB is disingenuous. Everyone knows the OL unit was the best in the league that year.
Disingenuous? Hardly. Just pointing out that even a team with a great O-Line made use of a Fullback, so why shouldn't a team with a not-so-great O-Line make use of one, too?
And no one has addressed one of my main points - that the Giants have been practicing with a Fullback. Why bother if they don't intend to use one? Why even have any on the roster (even the 90 man roster)?
At one point last season, they were using the center Jones as a blocking FB, but then Pugh got hurt as did Jones himself when trying to replace him.
There will be a role for the FB in the 2017 Giants offense, but, as was the case last year, it's going to be difficult for a true FB to make the team. As you noted yourself, Ellison has contributed in this role in the past and there likely are other players on the roster that could fill a specific roll for a few plays. And there's only so many times the team will line up with a FB in formation as well.
Just my opinion, if course, but there you go.
I think the running game will be improved, but until they establish a consistent running game, where they are a constant threat to make it, especially short yardage, the running game will be suspect....
The OL is what it is....with the level of talent we have, we can only hope for incremental improvement......the majority of improvement is going to come from the pieces we have added to the offense, in the form of Engram, Ellison, Marshall, and a potential FB, whoever that may be.....these added pieces should prevent the running play from being blown up before it gets started....
The OL doesn't have to be smashmouth, just more consistent....and if it is, it creates more options for the offense, to keep the defense guessing......Mac was hampered in his play calling by the offensive personnel he had....that is not the case this season....if we can stay away from major injuries, this offense is going to put points on the board, again.....I think Eli may have his best season yet.....
will the Giants have a running threat? is a better way to put it. they should have a much better running game, including short yardage when a run is expected, but I doubt they can jam it down anyone's throat whenever they want, or as often as they want, which is what I think 'smashmouth' implies.
Let's review:
Note the part where I say that "I don't expect the 2017 Giants to resemble the 1990 Giants in any way, shape or form," and also note the use of the phrase, "at least on a limited basis" when referring to the power running game. Since that's the way the Giants have been practicing in the Spring, why is it so unreasonable to suggest that we'll see it in the regular season?
Quote:
Isn't going to create smash mouth football next season. A good OL who plays well as a unit will.
Your comment about 2 1k rushers with an all pro FB is disingenuous. Everyone knows the OL unit was the best in the league that year.
Disingenuous? Hardly. Just pointing out that even a team with a great O-Line made use of a Fullback, so why shouldn't a team with a not-so-great O-Line make use of one, too?
And no one has addressed one of my main points - that the Giants have been practicing with a Fullback. Why bother if they don't intend to use one? Why even have any on the roster (even the 90 man roster)?
Ok, so the Giants may use a FB some this year. BFD? How is that conclusive of a return to "smash mouth" football?
You're a wise man, my friend.
Ellison is highly regarded in the blocking department. We have yet to see Engram with live bullets, but the reports say he is willing. Adams showed promise as a blocking TE. Can we not use recycled phrases from last year? You can certainly bitch about the OL (which I don't think is as bad as advertised), but the TE bitching is a bit outdated.
Nowadays, he says, the talent level is too even, and you can't just overpower guys if they know what you're doing. You have to do something to create a moment of hesitation/decision in the other team. That moment can be a fraction of a second, but you use that fraction of a second to get an advantage.
So the Parcells era smashmouth, the who-cares-if-you-know-what-we-are-doing-we-are-just-going-to-beat-you-anyway thing is probably gone for good.
One advantage the Cowboys had was that they were built to be a power running team, and most defenses aren't built to stop that anymore. Defenses don't have the personnel for that; they have fast, light linebackers and pass rushers instead of run stoppers. The Giants, however, are built to stop a power running game -- among other things.
The Niners and Seahawks have had a 3 year heard start on the Cowboys with the smashmouth power running game dating back to around 2011.
And both those defenses were built to stop that very same run game. The Seahawks style 4-3 under gets a lot of rep as a pass defense, but stopping the run well has been very paramount to their success.
As opposed to Denver who schemes mostly with great pass rush and CBs, which works against many teams but not those that can run the ball.
extinct? The Cowboys are a smashmouth team and have been since Parcells was there.