Offense ?? Spags cannot take any chances what so ever because there is no confidence that this offense will score any points. How about they try to play from ahead for once ?
but I imagine -- and it's only my imagination at this point -- that if you're an opposing offense, one of the first things in your game plan is to contain Landon Collins and keep him from ruining your game.
But you have limited resources, and if you devote resources to neutralizing Collins, that should open opportunities for other guys.
Collins may not be personally responsible for the lack of 3-and-outs, but collectively, the D hasn't really lived up to its pre-season press clippings. They haven't given up a lot of points, but they haven't dominated, and they were supposed to be a dominant defense.
But, having watched both games live and almost entirely in slo-mo via GamePass (yeah, lots of time on my hands...) it was something that stuck in my mind. Just didn't see LC as much at the point of attack.
Not that LC has regressed - not at all - but rather possibly NFL teams are learning to scheme around him.
Is this at all possible, or probable? The guy is so good it makes sense that opponents will target him for work-arounds. Anybody else get that same sense (that it was bound to happen, or that it is happening)?
I realize that the sample size is way too small at this point, so I'm content to wait & see...just not sure that the OP's eyes were deceiving him.
I'll pay closer attention against the Eagles & see if anything comes up scheme-wise.
One of the less lovely things about BBI is the gratuitous abuse that gets hurled at posters. Perhaps the OP should have been put his question in a more nuanced way. But for more than 20 people, one after another, to demean him should be a 15 yard penalty. The OP is not the reason the Giants are losing.
He might have said: "Last season it seemed that LC was flying all over the field make play after play and keying a defense that was very good. This season, he seems less in evidence. Is it just too small a sample size after only 2 games? Or is there something different about his play or the schemes?"
That would have been a perfectly reasonable question worthy of thoughtful responses not the pointless invective to which he was subjected.
One of the less lovely things about BBI is the gratuitous abuse that gets hurled at posters. Perhaps the OP should have been put his question in a more nuanced way. But for more than 20 people, one after another, to demean him should be a 15 yard penalty. The OP is not the reason the Giants are losing.
He might have said: "Last season it seemed that LC was flying all over the field make play after play and keying a defense that was very good. This season, he seems less in evidence. Is it just too small a sample size after only 2 games? Or is there something different about his play or the schemes?"
That would have been a perfectly reasonable question worthy of thoughtful responses not the pointless invective to which he was subjected.
That's a very fair and measured take. I'd invite you to look at the OP's follow-up post where he said "I see a guy not stepping up" as all the evidence you should need that he worded his original post exactly as he intended.
is that I don't like him playing back in a classic Cover 2 shell. Closer to the line . Closer to the action. He's a great player , one of the league's 10 best. But his play in deep coverage interests me the least. They'll need a big nickel tomorrow because Philadelphia uses a lot of tight formations with multiple TEs & a big wide receiver so I should get my wish .
is that I don't like him playing back in a classic Cover 2 shell. Closer to the line . Closer to the action. He's a great player , one of the league's 10 best. But his play in deep coverage interests me the least. They'll need a big nickel tomorrow because Philadelphia uses a lot of tight formations with multiple TEs & a big wide receiver so I should get my wish .
From your lips to God's ears, Retro. We'll need him to neutralize Ertz if we're going to have any chance. Getting Keenan Robinson back should help in that regard as well.
I see a guy not stepping up.
You don't sustain drives, continue to go 3 and out or turn the ball over, eventually the defense is going to suffer
If this defense wasn't so good week 1 would've been a 30+ point blowout.
Quote:
Let's pick on arguably our best overall player.....
I see a guy not stepping up.
I see a guy who is probably not going to last much longer on this board.
But you have limited resources, and if you devote resources to neutralizing Collins, that should open opportunities for other guys.
Collins may not be personally responsible for the lack of 3-and-outs, but collectively, the D hasn't really lived up to its pre-season press clippings. They haven't given up a lot of points, but they haven't dominated, and they were supposed to be a dominant defense.
Not that LC has regressed - not at all - but rather possibly NFL teams are learning to scheme around him.
Is this at all possible, or probable? The guy is so good it makes sense that opponents will target him for work-arounds. Anybody else get that same sense (that it was bound to happen, or that it is happening)?
I realize that the sample size is way too small at this point, so I'm content to wait & see...just not sure that the OP's eyes were deceiving him.
I'll pay closer attention against the Eagles & see if anything comes up scheme-wise.
He might have said: "Last season it seemed that LC was flying all over the field make play after play and keying a defense that was very good. This season, he seems less in evidence. Is it just too small a sample size after only 2 games? Or is there something different about his play or the schemes?"
That would have been a perfectly reasonable question worthy of thoughtful responses not the pointless invective to which he was subjected.
Yeah, bad thread but not even close to dumbest in past 12 mos...
He might have said: "Last season it seemed that LC was flying all over the field make play after play and keying a defense that was very good. This season, he seems less in evidence. Is it just too small a sample size after only 2 games? Or is there something different about his play or the schemes?"
That would have been a perfectly reasonable question worthy of thoughtful responses not the pointless invective to which he was subjected.
That's a very fair and measured take. I'd invite you to look at the OP's follow-up post where he said "I see a guy not stepping up" as all the evidence you should need that he worded his original post exactly as he intended.
From your lips to God's ears, Retro. We'll need him to neutralize Ertz if we're going to have any chance. Getting Keenan Robinson back should help in that regard as well.