|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Last Friday, offensive line coach Mike Solari brought his group together and instructed his players to form a circle. “We didn’t know what was going on,’’ D.J. Fluker told The Post, laughing at the memory. Solari told the linemen to link arms and form a chain. “At that point I could tell when I looked in his eyes, he was serious,’’ Fluker said. “He wanted us to be a physical group of guys who have each other’s back. He said, ‘I don’t care what happens, I want to you go out there, be physical, play, have fun,’ and that’s what we did. I’m thankful he said that, because it set the tone for us mentally and physically. Everybody bought in.’’ |
Everything starts right there...heck our OL for SB 25 was not a great pass blocking line but they could sure run block and that helped their pass blocking because teams had to respect the run.
I really hope this signals a change in our philosophy going forward. Run the ball 30-35 times a game even if, early on, it doesn't work...stick with it. If we then play good D, we should always be in games. WRs like OBJ are nice to have but they are not the difference in terms of winning games. They are a nice luxury but that is all.
You still win in the NFL by pounding the ball, stopping it on D, and then having a good QB who makes smart plays and doesn't turn the ball over.
This is not rocket science.
I don't think it's a coincidence that flowers has also looked better recently with a renewed focus on the run game.
He's only 26...I think he still has upside in the right system. I prefer him over Jerry at RG going forward (next year).
and thats where i get mad if they actually turn it around
The RG is much more often lined up vs. the NT, and asked to make the key block at the POA on inside hand-offs. You want a Fluker doing that.
Where Fluker really stinks is the zone blocking and pulling. But the scheme we ran last Sunday - outside runs to the left and quick hitters up the gut - was a great use of personnel.
There was no magic button that was hit. Guys that were playing like trash two weeks ago are now playing better. 'Just run the ball more' is as lazy a take as 'blitz more'.
They wanted to run it and couldn't because the line was getting it's ass kicked up and down. And while people comment on coaching stubbornness, the suggestion for what he should have been doing is to keep running it 30 times even if it's not working, which is kind of the definition of stubbornness. we all saw the RBs getting crushed before even reaching the line of scrimmage. And it wasn't just one guy to blame. They passed it a lot because it was the only thing they could do with any level of competence.
The RG is much more often lined up vs. the NT, and asked to make the key block at the POA on inside hand-offs. You want a Fluker doing that.
Where Fluker really stinks is the zone blocking and pulling. But the scheme we ran last Sunday - outside runs to the left and quick hitters up the gut - was a great use of personnel.
The RG is much more often lined up vs. the NT, and asked to make the key block at the POA on inside hand-offs. You want a Fluker doing that.
Where Fluker really stinks is the zone blocking and pulling. But the scheme we ran last Sunday - outside runs to the left and quick hitters up the gut - was a great use of personnel.
Those quick hitters up the gut only work well when your C can move defenders. Jones was a huge improvement from Richburg. Not to take anything away from Fluker but having a C that does his job makes a huge difference.
For years I have been suggesting the Pugh should play tackle here, for a variety of reasons; 1, that he may be our best tackle, 2, due to how the drafts fall,what is achievable in drafting realistically, and that, in my view, 3, he was too light for this particular systems requirements at Guard.
What we did last week would seem a natural ourtflow from all those ideas. I am just a fan, so, yes, these things have been fairly obvious.
Of course, we really have no idea, from our couches, but, it seems that Sully is the one who is learning, albeit we dont know if these types of factors have been in his mind for long, and if so, how long.
Random guess was that both Jerry Reese and Macadoo were ignoring these factors.
But if the team is going to be committed to airing out the ball 40 times a game because they want to use their "weapons," wouldn't that play against their strengths assuming the coach comes back next year along with everyone else?
We see that Flowers and Fluker are very good at one particular aspect of the game. But if the team offensive philosophy is not truly committed to that and treats the running game as an afterthought, it is not putting them in a position to be successful players.
And the Giants' opponents are professional football teams with good players and coaches. The Giants can decide to ask a guy to do this instead of that, but as they say in the military, "The enemy gets a vote." The other team will be trying to force our guys into their weaknesses. Make Eli run, or throw to his fourth and fifth-best receiving options. Make a Gallman pick up a blitz. Make Engram stay in and block.
More than being a good pass blocker ...
That he's a better pulling guard. For his size, he's not an overpowering power presence, but is more of a "dancing bear" type - good balance and quick feet.
There was no magic button that was hit. Guys that were playing like trash two weeks ago are now playing better. 'Just run the ball more' is as lazy a take as 'blitz more'.
They wanted to run it and couldn't because the line was getting it's ass kicked up and down. And while people comment on coaching stubbornness, the suggestion for what he should have been doing is to keep running it 30 times even if it's not working, which is kind of the definition of stubbornness. we all saw the RBs getting crushed before even reaching the line of scrimmage. And it wasn't just one guy to blame. They passed it a lot because it was the only thing they could do with any level of competence.
I respect you a lot TTH, and I agree that the solutions aren't simple. But the suggestion that the Giants didn't run the ball more because they weren't successful at it is just wrong. Here's a couple of examples of when they should have run more.
1. @DAL the Giants had a game plan focused on passing the ball. They stuck with the plan even though they could not protect the passer. In the meantime, they had at least marginal success with the run. By halftime they had ZERO carries for a loss in the run game. Yes, it's true they had no explosive plays in the run game either, but they didn't stay committed to developing it either. Here's a sample:
Opening drive score 0-0 - 1st and 10 carry for 3 yards, then pass, pass, punt.
Second drive score 0-3 - pass, pass, pass, punt.
Third drive score 0-6. 1st and 10 carry for 3 yards, pass for 1st down. 1st and 10 carry for 3 yards, then carry for 3 yards again. 3rd and 4 pass and punt.
Fourth drive score 0-6 1st and 10 carry for 12 yards (Darkwa!), then pass (penalty down replayed), pass, pass, pass, punt.
Fifth drive score 0-13 pass, pass, pass, punt. This was the infamous 22 second drive that gave Dallas one more shot at a score before half, which they turned into a FG to take a 16 point lead into the locker room.
Now, look at the results from running the ball. 5 carries for 27 yds, or 5.4 ypc. It doesn't fit the narrative that you and others on BBI have given - that we couldn't run the ball. In fact we had relatively good success running the ball, as should have been expected. Dallas didn't play the man coverage we expected going into the game. They played the looser zone coverage with an intent on eliminating the big plays against. They were challenging us to be efficient on offense, basically daring us to run the ball. We clearly weren't committed to the run.
Second game - the LAC game @ home.
We had averaged over 6 YPC going into the fourth quarter. We had two possessions with the lead. Here they are:
1st possession @ 11 min remaining in 4Q score 22-17 good guys. 1st and 10 - Run for 6 yds. Then pass (-2 yards) pass (sacked -11 yards), punt.
2nd possession @ 4:50 remaining (Four minute offense) score 22-20. 1st and 10 - run for 3 yds. Then pass (incomplete), pass (sack -12 yds - strip, fumble recovered by LAC on NYG 11 yd line). This set up the 11 yd drive that made the game 27-22 and won the game for LAC.
I hate how the defense is blamed for not holding onto that lead. The offense gave them no chance by giving LAC the ball on the NYG 11 with a 2 point lead.
It's incorrect to suggest that the Giants could not run the ball in that situation. LAC had the 32nd rank run defense and NYG had run already for over 6 YPC against. There is absolutely no reason to think they shouldn't have tried both times to stick to the run.
Quote:
As if the solution was easy to come to.
There was no magic button that was hit. Guys that were playing like trash two weeks ago are now playing better. 'Just run the ball more' is as lazy a take as 'blitz more'.
They wanted to run it and couldn't because the line was getting it's ass kicked up and down. And while people comment on coaching stubbornness, the suggestion for what he should have been doing is to keep running it 30 times even if it's not working, which is kind of the definition of stubbornness. we all saw the RBs getting crushed before even reaching the line of scrimmage. And it wasn't just one guy to blame. They passed it a lot because it was the only thing they could do with any level of competence.
I respect you a lot TTH, and I agree that the solutions aren't simple. But the suggestion that the Giants didn't run the ball more because they weren't successful at it is just wrong. Here's a couple of examples of when they should have run more.
1. @DAL the Giants had a game plan focused on passing the ball. They stuck with the plan even though they could not protect the passer. In the meantime, they had at least marginal success with the run. By halftime they had ZERO carries for a loss in the run game. Yes, it's true they had no explosive plays in the run game either, but they didn't stay committed to developing it either. Here's a sample:
Opening drive score 0-0 - 1st and 10 carry for 3 yards, then pass, pass, punt.
Second drive score 0-3 - pass, pass, pass, punt.
Third drive score 0-6. 1st and 10 carry for 3 yards, pass for 1st down. 1st and 10 carry for 3 yards, then carry for 3 yards again. 3rd and 4 pass and punt.
Fourth drive score 0-6 1st and 10 carry for 12 yards (Darkwa!), then pass (penalty down replayed), pass, pass, pass, punt.
Fifth drive score 0-13 pass, pass, pass, punt. This was the infamous 22 second drive that gave Dallas one more shot at a score before half, which they turned into a FG to take a 16 point lead into the locker room.
Now, look at the results from running the ball. 5 carries for 27 yds, or 5.4 ypc. It doesn't fit the narrative that you and others on BBI have given - that we couldn't run the ball. In fact we had relatively good success running the ball, as should have been expected. Dallas didn't play the man coverage we expected going into the game. They played the looser zone coverage with an intent on eliminating the big plays against. They were challenging us to be efficient on offense, basically daring us to run the ball. We clearly weren't committed to the run.
Second game - the LAC game @ home.
We had averaged over 6 YPC going into the fourth quarter. We had two possessions with the lead. Here they are:
1st possession @ 11 min remaining in 4Q score 22-17 good guys. 1st and 10 - Run for 6 yds. Then pass (-2 yards) pass (sacked -11 yards), punt.
2nd possession @ 4:50 remaining (Four minute offense) score 22-20. 1st and 10 - run for 3 yds. Then pass (incomplete), pass (sack -12 yds - strip, fumble recovered by LAC on NYG 11 yd line). This set up the 11 yd drive that made the game 27-22 and won the game for LAC.
I hate how the defense is blamed for not holding onto that lead. The offense gave them no chance by giving LAC the ball on the NYG 11 with a 2 point lead.
It's incorrect to suggest that the Giants could not run the ball in that situation. LAC had the 32nd rank run defense and NYG had run already for over 6 YPC against. There is absolutely no reason to think they shouldn't have tried both times to stick to the run.
Good post.
It's not hindsight, either - I know I was annoyed by the complete refusal to make an honest attempt at establishing a ground game from the very start. Many others were, too.
It shouldn't have required these circumstances to utilize the correct personnel and formations and make more of a commitment to running the football.
We stuck with ineffective configurations, formations and personnel for far too long this year and it probably cost us at least a competitive season.
This offense was embarrassingly ineffective in games one and two. The signs that things needed to change were clear very early on.
I'm really not convinced anything would have changed if Hart, Richburg, and Perkins had all never been injured, either. I think we'd still be watching the same exact shit.
why not, he certainly is playing better and if it ain't broke don't fix it!
But what happens if the team next season is at "optimal strength?"
Do you think the coach will stick with the run game as the new mantra of the team if they continue to be successful with it the rest of the season? Or will they go right back to their original offensive plan?
That will be the challenge. If the coach remains and he sees this o-line develop a personality in the run game where they can control the line like they did the last few games, what does he do?