a mentality...it is sticking with it even when it isn't working. In my opinion, McAdoo does not have that mentality and therefore running the ball, for the current Giants, is an afterthought. It is not something, I believe, that is an essential part of the game plan.
In the NFL especially, if you want to run the ball then you have to be committed to it. I remember Joe Gibbs always talking about balance and how he had someone constantly telling him, during a game, about how many run plays had been called and how many pass plays. I know it was a different era but Parcells used to talk about this mentality also. Certainly, both our recent SB teams had a mentality to run the ball...in 2008, we had two 1,000 yard rushers.
Now, I know the league has changed but it is obvious that running the ball for the current Giants O is not something we want to do...it is something we do but not because we believe in it or are committed to it. Paul Schwartz in the article I posted yesterday gives some examples of times where we could have established the run and didn't...how, after Darkwa ran for 11 yards, we threw six straight passes.
The run game in the NFL is an attitude...and running it 15 times a game is not being committed to the run. I think it's time we stop fooling ourselves about this...if we get anything out of the run game, great, but this Giants team or coaches does not believe in the run game. Heck, if Mr. Slickback did believe in the run game then our starting RB would or should be Darkwa followed by Vereen. Darkwa is our best back for running between the tackles.
I also believe a commitment to run the ball would help our OL...let them attack rather than constantly pass block where we have issues. But, again, I emphasize, runnings it once every 7 plays is not a commitment to running the ball. I think most BBIer's know that running the ball helps the OL. But we have no such attitude or commitment and therefore our OL problems are exacerbated as a result.
I just don't see this changing and therefore we are what we are and we have to hope Eli doesn't get killed.
you need to stick to the running game and mix up formations to keep defenses on their heels. the results start to show in the fourth quarter when defenses are tired. throwing 40 times per game doesn't make sense with our offensive line, eli's decline and our solid defense.
Surely an NFL OL has played HS ball, and college ball too - you'd think they played on teams and ran the ball, right? At one time they were asked to run block. If they ascended to the NFL you have to believe they were at least competent at it? No? Cause it really doesn't look like it AT ALL!
It's truly amazing.
I'm not concerned with where a player was drafted as much as how uncommitted they are to the run game, and the whole rb committee approach which doesn't work. No one can get into a rythm when you dont run the ball, but worse when you each rb gets like 4 carries sporadically throughout the game. Its just bad play calling and coaching.
Surely an NFL OL has played HS ball, and college ball too - you'd think they played on teams and ran the ball, right? At one time they were asked to run block. If they ascended to the NFL you have to believe they were at least competent at it? No? Cause it really doesn't look like it AT ALL!
It's truly amazing.
That's how I felt watching Flowers try to block Ansah. Like seriously has he never faced an NFL defensive end before? And he was a first round pick at that. Just astonishing he just looked like an overgrown pee wee player that was just getting abused by an actual NFL player.
Catch-22 ... the OL itself stinks.
We can't afford to waste downs on running plays that gain -2 to 3 yards. We just don't have that luxury. If we "stick to the run" the most likely result is going to be a whole bunch of plays that do nothing.
Despite the terrible OL, our passing game (when Eli wasn't being sacked) managed to at least be productive at times. We need to stick to that. Since our running game is so terrible, it has no value in "keeping the defense honest" since the running game stinks. It just wastes plays.
Having a good to great RB doesn't solve the OL problem, but he makes the line play better. The OL knows that if they can just sustain their block a half a beat longer the great RB will reward them with a big gain.
Once the RB gets off some big runs the confidence of the OL goes up and they play better versus the run AND the pass...since the DL would be less likely to ingnore the run and just rush the QB.
It also means that play action would work better, drives would be sustained longer and the D would get a little more rest.
I know a lot of posters (and apparently the Giants' management) think that RBs are not worth a premium pick, but having a great one sure would solve a lot of problems.
It's easier to pass protect if the DL THINKS that there is the possibility of a run play.
It's not complicated.
the signs and stats here have been blatantly obvious for years
I am leaning towards a Mara Jr. [not being all that sharp about the game type situation] and [ has fallen for the usual gangs corporate banter ].
this often happens in family owned business, mental skills and insight are not often passed down like that in real life.
The Giants have 27 rushing attempts on 1st down in two games..
Meanwhile, they have 6!!! that's right 6!! on 2nd and 3rd down COMBINED!!!
Coach Ben has to vary his play calls a little to give his OL a chance
It's hard to run or pass block when everyone knows what's coming.
This is 101 shit here people that management has fastidiously stuck to ignoring
But in this era, teams impose their will through the air.
Now, I'd love to see smashmouth play, but it is an aberration these days, and with the OL the way it is, you really want to do that?
If Mac commits to the run when his best weapons are WR's that would be completely foolish.
OK - I'm sorry - I'll stop.
Bottom line is the more I look at the evidence and think about the results...it's clear that Ben as OC calling plays is a bigger part of the problem than I originally thought. I thought it was our players suck - in particular the OL, but the more I dig, the more I think it's the coach not putting the OL in a position to succeed.
The type of O mac runs sort of robs the OL of its initiative,
whereas the duties may seem 'simple' in one sense ("stand there and wait for the rush") its harder in another sense, in that it makes the OL the passive or reactive participant on most plays.
couple that with questionable player selection and its s recipe for failure.
We now have teams approaching 65% of their snaps being passes, but they vary it for short routes to control the ball and intermediate/deep routes for getting chunks of yardage.
When TC was preaching a 50/50 ratio, people here were screaming it was too predictable as well and that we needed to pass more.
whereas, in truth, what they have been doing, while it is 'simple ' in one sense, is harder to succeed at in another.
especially without the change ups that a more diverse ratio or weight of other stuff would give you...as said above, its readable
108 offensive plays and we've run on consecutive downs twice.
Almost every single drive follows the same script. We need to commit to running the football more.
It's fine and well to want a mauler to maul, but that doesn't seem to be true either.
all you need to look at is our recent sunday at the cowholders to remedy that delusion
more to the point, trends go in cycles.
But more to the point - the Cowboys were the only team last year to run the ball over 50% of the time. In 2005 - 7 teams ran the ball 50% of the time. In 1986, 13 teams ran the ball over 50% of the time
To refute that the league is moving away from the run is ignoring facts.
I'm not saying that the Giants shouldn't run the ball more - but it isn't guaranteeing better results to do so,
108 offensive plays and we've run on consecutive downs twice.
Almost every single drive follows the same script. We need to commit to running the football more.
I hear you and that is damning, but when you are running the ball so poorly, you face long yardage and have to call a pass...it's not like the Giants are getting 6 yards/carry and have other options.
however, there are models for beating those, such as Cowboys (huge and good) or Falcons (zip it outside zone with a quick low tough RB)
Quote:
I started a thread on this after the game.
108 offensive plays and we've run on consecutive downs twice.
Almost every single drive follows the same script. We need to commit to running the football more.
I hear you and that is damning, but when you are running the ball so poorly, you face long yardage and have to call a pass...it's not like the Giants are getting 6 yards/carry and have other options.
Well, ask yourself this...
Is the alternative working?
1. build the crap out of the OL
2. only when that's done, get a qb from a school with a crap line
3. run and play action
3. possibly they even ran something resembling my 5-0-6 on D last week, if only briefly
As an example - you had mentioned the GB Packers previously which is a good example given BM experience. Obviously looking at down rush/pass attempts in isolation can be dangerous because it doesn't take into consideration field position, distance, score, etc. I would argue that McAdoo's play calling trends are extreme.
Pack split on down and run/pass attempts:
1st down: 20 runs to 40 passes
2nd down: 17 runs to 29 passes
3rd down: 6 runs to 20 passes
Giants split on down and run/pass attempts:
1st down: 24 runs to 21 passes
2nd down: 4 runs to 26 passes
3rd down 2 runs to 20 passes
Proactive Concept from an offensive line point of view, and plan the O around that.
Which means lots and lots plays with lots and lots of practice, that
1. enable the OL to fire out and hit people at angles,
2. run plays that develop instantly at snap, bringing the RB up instantly and with thump.
3. Lots of variety and multiplicity within those concepts, not cheating yourself from a nice dose of outside zone, both sides. More '12' personel.
Then and only after that's established,
4. misdirection runs and play action, moving QB and routes the other way.
only after you have reinvented that O strongly in that manner go back to a few of the old, stand and wait plays.
The Packers have a better YPC than the Giants and more rushing yards per game for the last 3 years running.
If I were an OL line coach - these would be my discussion points with the OC every offseason about OL personnel and team offensive scheme - and every week before every game these would be my discussions except more fine tuned to the opponent and their strengths and weaknesses.
These conversations are either, one sided, not happening or there is a disconnect.
This stopped being about scheme and which RB we have the moment I realized that our OL is physically weaker than the man standing in front of them.
Watch the attached clip of the Dallas game (3:44 mark of the video). Our RT (Hart?) was thrown backwards about 3 yards and landed on his back. The defender who did that made the play. It was like an adult playing with a child. I have been seeing this like this for a while so it is not just ONE play.
I don't know how you overcome a strength/matchup problem like this. Makes me wonder how much better it would be if we had Defensive lineman blocking for us on one series...LOL
OL PLay - ( New Window )
It's a very difficult thing to assess right now, but I think the OP holds a lot of weight. Heck, McAdoo even said doing the same thing over and over is insanity. Well, for once I'd like to see us run the ball so much to an extent it at least seems we're running more than we are passing.
The OL has not performed well for some time either in run or pass blocking. It's clear that pass-blocking at the moment is an exposed weakness. So, why not try running more to at least find out if we have a chance at establishing some form of balance?
Game scripts aside, the playcalling is my #1 issue right now. Flowers, the OL as a whole, our RBs, the dependence on OBJ, all of that is secondary to how the game is being called and the offense is being run.
McAdoo was supposed to be this offensive guru who was responsible for Aaron Rodgers' success while he was there. I've seen nothing that makes me go "wow what a great offensive game plan" as of yet. In fact, I find myself saying the exact opposite when we run the same bloody reverse 3 times in a game. Because THAT is how we plan on running the ball.
Where's the Power O? Off tackle? Simple counter?
It's mind-boggling that we have 6 combined runs on 2nd and 3rd down.
You're either a f***ing idiot or an arrogant stubborn SOB when those are the run attempts.
Through two weeks, the Cowboys have passed the ball 68% of the time.
Meanwhile, the Lions have been in the top 3 for pass % plays each of the past three years and right now they are in the top 10 of teams with running %.
If the stats continue, it is more astounding than what they are now.
McAdoo was supposed to be this offensive guru who was responsible for Aaron Rodgers' success while he was there.
Not sure if anyone else caught the pre-game interview with Aaron Rodgers before our playoff game last year. They asked him about coach McAdoo. I thought he would have said something like.. good coach, loved working with him, something positive as it relates to X's and O's. His response was "funny guy". "Had a lot of fun in the locker room." (paraphrasing)
The Giants repeatedly PLAN to get to MANAGEABLE third down. Why not run plays that will make a first down on 1st or 2nd down? When we did we went down the field. Then right back to the shell.
The math is against us.
The way the Giants play a 60 yard drive requires 5 first downs. 4 of those will come down to 3rd down. If we are 100% on third down we get a TD. Anything less is a field goal or punt.
Alternative
Lets say we throw a 10 yard pass on first down on 3 of those series. Repeat on second if incomplete. Repeat on third if 0-2. A 33% rate gets a first down for that series.
A 50% success rate means we don't even get to 3rd down.
If you only get 8 on first down then run. Sets up for play action later.
In that scenario you could go 2 for 2 on third down and have half your plays fail and still get a TD.
Also there is this:
Why don't we just play better? Why don't we give Flowers some help?