|
|
Quote: |
MIN 2017 (Shurmur): 11 personnel - 57% 12 personnel - 23% 21 personnel - 5% 13 personnel - 3% 22 personnel - 8% 10 personnel - 1% 01 personnel - 0% 20 personnel - 2% 23 personnel - 1% NYG 2016 (McAdoo): 11 personnel - 92% 12 personnel - 5% 22 personnel - 0% 10 personnel - 2% 01 personnel - 0% NYG 2017 (Sullivan): 11 personnel - 52% 12 personnel - 21% 21 personnel - 4% 13 personnel - 3% 22 personnel - 3% 10 personnel - 14% 01 personnel - 1% 20 personnel - 2% 23 personnel - 0% 00 personnel - 1% 02 personnel - 0% |
Not to negate E.E.'s contributions at TE going forward, not at all, but this new guy may want the flexibility of using E.E. as an outlier... even when in 12 or even 13.
Look at the blocking piece, at WR E.E. is a + blocker vs a db. But not a ++ blocker vs a DE or LB, just for one example.
So, breaking that RB free for long runs....
Not to negate E.E.'s contributions at TE going forward, not at all, but this new guy may want the flexibility of using E.E. as an outlier... even when in 12 or even 13.
Look at the blocking piece, at WR E.E. is a + blocker vs a db. But not a ++ blocker vs a DE or LB, just for one example.
So, breaking that RB free for long runs....
I like that Penn State TE as a two way. Jerrell Adams didn't improve as much as I hoped he would have in the passing game. Replacing him with a more polished guy would give us a lot more versatility for sure.
Not to negate E.E.'s contributions at TE going forward, not at all, but this new guy may want the flexibility of using E.E. as an outlier... even when in 12 or even 13.
Look at the blocking piece, at WR E.E. is a + blocker vs a db. But not a ++ blocker vs a DE or LB, just for one example.
So, breaking that RB free for long runs....
Wouldn't that be where the other TE they spent a lot of money on fits in?
I agree. All the rumblings about him interviewing for OC jobs and nothing so far. He might have to settle for TE coach of the Browns.
The running game improved tremendously. It's hard to be too down on the passing game when your wide receivers are all out of the league again. Not that the offense couldn't be improved. But I think Shurmur represents more of the right kind of changes.
BestFeature : 9:16 pm : link : reply
in personnel groupings made us predictable and played a large role in the poor offense. This year we had more variations than Shurmur and sucked worse. I know we had a ton of injuries but still...
When Mac was calling the plays, we were still in the 11 personnel 84% of the time. Once he handed it over to Sullivan, we showed more groupings, but we also were down several WR's and started using different personnel packages. The last 3 weeks when we were trotting out pretty much street guys and Spags was coach, we really spread out the personnel groups.
Quote:
Last year we swore up and down that the lack of variety
BestFeature : 9:16 pm : link : reply
in personnel groupings made us predictable and played a large role in the poor offense. This year we had more variations than Shurmur and sucked worse. I know we had a ton of injuries but still...
When Mac was calling the plays, we were still in the 11 personnel 84% of the time. Once he handed it over to Sullivan, we showed more groupings, but we also were down several WR's and started using different personnel packages. The last 3 weeks when we were trotting out pretty much street guys and Spags was coach, we really spread out the personnel groups.
That's a good point. And I think furthers the idea that Shurmur will run a much more diverse offense (and by choice not necessity).
Setback...wheel routes...etc
Setback...wheel routes...etc
If EE is out wide with two other TEs inline, I'm pretty sure that's still 13 (or 03 or 23) personnel...
Whereas, outside zone run left, classic line up, you can run that...run inside zone left guard, run counter...roll out right, QB designed run right...
Multi skilled players like E.E. can also help confuse the 'tells'...start in 13...go to 12...5 wide (2 wrs 3 ,'te's)
for instance, maybe strength of TE's were better, using hypothetically, in minny than giants, thus, 12, 22, 02 were called more often than say, 21 etc etc
Or empty one side WR...
I may have said the formations wrong.
Just draft a great TE and suddenly we are super multiple.
Or empty one side WR...
I may have said the formations wrong.
Just draft a great TE and suddenly we are super multiple.
I agree with that, but it's in large part due to the versatility of Rhett Ellison playing both FB and TE.
Or...21 by pulling ellison back.
Supposedly lots of TEs this draft....
But that 02 could also be a great QB designed run formation. Lots of blockers. EE from slot is an above average blocker at that spot - as well as a legit receiving threat.
I'm pretty sure it's player dependent, and not like Idiot and JB are describing it.
Moving Engram has no effect on his being a TE. That's probably why his PFF grades suck. They have his TE-ness embedded pretty deep in their algorithms.
Oh I see what you mean. Yeah, I'm not sure about that...
Moving Engram has no effect on his being a TE. That's probably why his PFF grades suck. They have his TE-ness embedded pretty deep in their algorithms.
You're right about what it should be. I'm not sure why JB and IS think personnel and formation are interchangeable. Or why JB thinks Ellison's name is Ellis, but that's a separate issue.
Who are you even talking to? Is this another stream of consciousness?
A few posters back when this was a hot topic kept saying that running the same formation 90% of the time makes it easy for the defense to diagnose since only a handful of plays can be run.
The personnel grouping doesn't limit the number of plays (it may eliminate things like a handoff to a FB or a throw to a TE2 that doesn't exist, but technically it doesn't handcuff the depth of the playbook.
these threads are actually a pretty good way to figure out who knows stuff and who doesn't have a fucking clue.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure it's player dependent, and not like Idiot and JB are describing it.
Moving Engram has no effect on his being a TE. That's probably why his PFF grades suck. They have his TE-ness embedded pretty deep in their algorithms.
You're right about what it should be. I'm not sure why JB and IS think personnel and formation are interchangeable. Or why JB thinks Ellison's name is Ellis, but that's a separate issue.
You've got me questioning these numbers now. I guess very rough estimates are what they more likely are. There's no way 10 was run over 10% of the time. Ideally, that's just a mistake from counting Engram's 11 snaps as 10s.
Thanks for posting that!
It may be that they didn't trust the players in some ways....
..but,predictability obviously makes it far harder, not easier, for players to excel, so. Vicious cycle. Obviously the relative lower occurrence of play action is an easy way to see this.
I think he knew he didn't have the talent up front, and I don't think he had that much confidence in Eli given the frosty relationship. That has to play in to gameplans and playcalling tendencies.
Or that heaviest wins... Hehe
Teams defend what you run...not what you list on paper.
Regarding posters getting annoyed with the 11 personnel that McAdoo deployed 92% of the time, he ran the base formation out of that personnel grouping a lot: 1 RB, 1 TE and 1 WR on one side of the formation and two wide receivers on the other side of the formation. He didn't have much formation variation with that personnel grouping. That is what the fans, and I think the players, were annoyed with.
I get it: personnel grouping, not formation. But with versatile personnel, you can do a lot with formations and give the "look" of different personnel groupings. If Ellison is in backfield in I formation, he is a fullback (ie, a running back), and I really think I can argue that it is 21.
Link - ( New Window )
Regarding posters getting annoyed with the 11 personnel that McAdoo deployed 92% of the time, he ran the base formation out of that personnel grouping a lot: 1 RB, 1 TE and 1 WR on one side of the formation and two wide receivers on the other side of the formation. He didn't have much formation variation with that personnel grouping. That is what the fans, and I think the players, were annoyed with.
I get it: personnel grouping, not formation. But with versatile personnel, you can do a lot with formations and give the "look" of different personnel groupings. If Ellison is in backfield in I formation, he is a fullback (ie, a running back), and I really think I can argue that it is 21. Link - ( New Window )
That's a valid point regarding positional flexibility, but the only way that analyzing personnel groupings makes sense is to be formation-agnostic. The fact that Engram (as a situational WR) or Ellison (as a situational FB) have flexibility is great - the possibility that the Giants can run a 3WR I-formation, for example, out of 12 personnel gives them a lot of options, but it's still fundamentally 12 personnel. Otherwise, you're dealing with inconsistent data due to things like pre-snap motion, audibles, etc. And that's obviously not a change in personnel.
So. Simpler but in one sense much harder. Stand and wait for a dler to block.
So. Simpler but in one sense much harder. Stand and wait for a dler to block.
Holy shit, can you just open a word document on your computer instead?
People act as if players are simply calfed out of college with 100% pre+determined outcomes.
Bullshit.
Part of it is situation,opportunity, scheme (or what ever you call it, for fucks sake), training, coaching...personnel.formations
How is the 23 personnel package going to help the offense when it means that the team's best offensive weapon (Odell Beckham) will be on the sidelines?
He was also too inexperienced to have any idea what to do about it. I don't believe even veteran coaches can overcome a bad lineup, but there are things you can do to try even if it's just spinning wheels in mud.
You just wrote six posts, including two that began with "in other words," to try to explain away the fact that you don't know the difference between personnel and formation (and scheme, apparently).
But, very obviously it's not just that.
Players in great situations IMPROVE as players...and players in crap situations sometimes regress as players.
Under normal circumstances, I doubt a defense plays a different personnel when faced with 21 versus 12.
And that is the key to the different offensive personnel groupings - which one gives your offense the most favorable match-ups.
A few posters back when this was a hot topic kept saying that running the same formation 90% of the time makes it easy for the defense to diagnose since only a handful of plays can be run.
The personnel grouping doesn't limit the number of plays (it may eliminate things like a handoff to a FB or a throw to a TE2 that doesn't exist, but technically it doesn't handcuff the depth of the playbook.
these threads are actually a pretty good way to figure out who knows stuff and who doesn't have a fucking clue.
It's more than that FMiC, but you and others know that. Running a WCO with a savvy QB, but a group of Street FA WRs results on neither being on the same page...balls thrown to where the receiver should've been, but weren't.
Down & Distance & Field position narrows both personnel and formations, plays and routes. Pre-snap reads and blitzes give the QBs and Receivers 2.8 seconds to get the ball out.
8 or more in the box dictate
run plays be changed by the QB to pass plays, or 6 in the box from pass to run plays.
Most fans don't understand you can't run any time consuming routes other than WR screens, slants or sticks in 2.8 seconds. If your OL is as crappy as the Giants OL was in 2017, Eli didn't have 2.8 seconds.