Seems that on either side of the ball they simplify things at some point over the course of the season . Why not simplify things from Day 1 and go from there? Why wait till you have 5 bad Offensive or Defensive games before you simplify?
the coaches have a need to be embarrassed and have their jobs on the line to take action contrary to their long held beliefs. Fans can see that the players cannot execute in real time these wild fantasies the coaches have in mind.
Maybe next year when we have the same staff back because we went 4-12, we can screw up much, much worse and begin to adjust the offense and defense after only 4 horrific losses.
and picked the plays that they were most successful running and got rid of everything else. If you ran basic plays and become really good at them,why all the window dressing that leads to confusion and everyone not on the same page?
Vince Lombardi, who was a pretty good coach, used to run the same simple play over and over until a team demonstrated an ability to stop the play. His philosophy was to beat teams physically and out work them and our last then on the field. I think that worked out OK.
I don't get the whole complicated offense and defense thing. Especially since its been an ongoing problem with these Giants. At the end of the day,you have to blame TC. Why wwouldn't he have already said to Fewell and Killdrive, "keep it simple"?
to none of this nonsense about complicated offenses and defenses. I watch a lot of football and the Giant offense, although excellent at times, does not look any more complicated than lets say the Packers, the Saints, the Cowboys, etc. There are so many plays the Giants do not even seem capable of running such as a screen pass or a quick pass out of the backfield to a running back. So what play do the Giants run that is complicated?
gives me pause. In theory if you had a QB working with the same set of receivers for 4 years, yeah, the QB should be in the same page as the WR's. BUT every year guys leave and guys get hurt and ELi gets burned by throwing where he thought the WR 's body language thought he would be. To Paraphrase Ronald Reagan " Mr Gilbride cut down
that Tree"
a lot of the reports said they were trying all kinds of funky stuff. a lot of concern was raised. while it's the time to try a variety of stuff, the limitations on practice time means you're not cementing the bread and butter plays (of course, with limited turnover on O personnel, and the return of an O system that we've used for years, the bread and butter should be ingrained already). Whether that was the cause, the O came out sloppy at the beginning of the season when Gilbride dialed up a heavy dose of complex high test performance. Also have to factor in that it seems as though no consideration was given to the OL, with it's rookie RT, a Snee coming off surgery with almost no practice, and an injured Baas. They were all just thrown into the fire and hoped they held up.
I don't know if simplification is the right word, but maybe an approach of mixing in easier plays early in the season, then adding in the complex stuff when you demonstrate you can handle it?
gives me pause. In theory if you had a QB working with the same set of receivers for 4 years, yeah, the QB should be in the same page as the WR's. BUT every year guys leave and guys get hurt and ELi gets burned by throwing where he thought the WR 's body language thought he would be. To Paraphrase Ronald Reagan " Mr Gilbride cut down
that Tree"
Head
Everyone has the same issues as we have as far as personnel. Problem is when one player makes a mistake it is an incomplete pass. No big deal. When they both make a mistake it is a pick. I am very sure, and of course there is no way me or anyone on here, that we are not the most complicated offense out there.
Its a lot easier to hit the breaks than the gas. There is a lack of practice time in the NFL. When would you propose we start getting complicated? You have time with the mini camps, OTAs and training camp to work on installing your schemes. During the season it is more about using what is in your arsenal to attack a team than it is about complicating your scheme. Yes, adjustments are made but they are made off of what you already have installed. There simply is just a lack of time to keep introducing new concepts during a game week while still trying to understand what the other team likes to do. This doesn't mean that teams don't install new stuff from time to time but it is very limited. You can do more of this during your bye week.
Look no further than how TC's team's have started in the past. We have always come out strong. Its the late season collapses that have been our achilles heel. This year is the exception not the rule.
I'm not sure we're looking at this the right way... Â
Historically, the Gmen start off playing pretty good ball, but fall off in November which would suggest the "complicated" schemes are not this issue. I would think that alone would be reason enough not to change the a more simplified scheme earlier on.
Where I think we get into trouble is when injuries start piling up and less experienced guys have to fill in who may not have as good of an understanding of the playbook. Hence the need for the change.
would not of had the same starts if they ran a basic offense and simplified defense? Injuries certainly are are a reason for the 2 NDA's halves if the seasons we've had, but plugging in new players to a simplified offense and defense might make the injuries less of a factor because there would be less thinking by the replacements
I think Eli should just draw the play on his hands in the huddle. Â
Go back to the playground stuff.. I'm not sure why we're running all this complex shit that is confusing everyone. Tell one guy to go long, one guy to run an out and one guy to run a slant and tell everyone else to block.
Having a Beason, Hillis(to receive out of the backfield Â
many plays where the OL whiffed on their blocks. Even in the simplest of offenses, plays are not going to work when that happens. In the first six games, defenses were able to attack our OL and win the battles easily - in the last two games, those defenses could not. On defense, in the last two games, we faced QBs that were simply not NFL ready. The idea that simplification allowed us to win the last two games is fool's gold, imo.
does anyone truly know or is it another BBI buzzword?
I'm starting to think its the later. Complex route running? Really? How difficult can a route possibly be?
These aren't guys that just got plopped into football this year, they have been around it the majority of their lives.
I'm not doubting that things may be harder to pick up with different packages, or having to audible, etc, but I think its somewhat of myth here to be honest.
The simplified schemas might work against the Vikings and Eagles both w backup QBs, but we'll have to see how successful it is against above average teams.
It could be the staff felt the schemas put in place at the beginning of the year is what they thought was needed to get the team into the playoffs. For a number of reasons that proved to be a bad decision.
Players and former players made comments to the effect that the (Gilbride) offense was much harder to learn than any other they had been in; huge number of options.
It probably takes a lot more memorization for a player to be able to do his job right with this offense. Those players also spoke about a lot of decision making just prior to the snap.
If true, one can easily understand why receivers who are not gifted mentally or rather new to the team often blow the route they are supposed to run.
======================================================
This year's recent offensive adjustments hasn't been intentionally to simplify things but to get the ball out quicker and run shorter routes.
does anyone truly know or is it another BBI buzzword?
I'm starting to think its the later. Complex route running? Really? How difficult can a route possibly be?
These aren't guys that just got plopped into football this year, they have been around it the majority of their lives.
I'm not doubting that things may be harder to pick up with different packages, or having to audible, etc, but I think its somewhat of myth here to be honest.
Uconn,
The routes are "complex" because Eli and the WR have to both see the same thing in the D to decide which way the route will go.
For instance, if a defender is playing 5 yards off the LOS and showing man coverage, the route should be a 10 yard hook route. If the man is playing bump coverage, the route should be a 10 yard in-route.
However, if both Eli and the WR are not seeing things the exact same way, the ball will be thrown one way and the WR will run another, and we end up looking like we're on the wrong page or with an INT.
I'm with everyone here and just have set routes instead of "options" for the WRs to run. Get back to nut-and-bolt football.
I get that, but many make it seem like way more than it is. Many teams have offenses that work in a similar capacity. I just think people use this as the excuse, when in reality, we may just have 1 too many bad players on either side of the ball.
I tend to think its a mix, but it's really hard for me to blame the scheme when we won 2 SB's with it, with teams far more talented (and younger on the o-line).
for such a well "coached" team, we beat ourselves far far far too often.
I would like to see the offense function under a different philosophy...
the "simplification" buzzwords have been used by players and coaches alike in the past, and I think its valid that we as fans can ask, what is the deal with why it continues to be so difficult for everyone to be on the same page year in and year out and that when certain things are done it "CLICKS"
try to figure out how to make it CLICK all the time instead of changing it back to times where it didn't.
Execution is the biggest. Any, even an awful strategy can work in football if your team executes to 100% every play. The Giants biggest issue is execution. The offensive line has been atrocious, the tight ends and backs have been bad and can't block or catch, Nicks has not been himself, and Randle doesn't see what Eli sees.
Another reason they wouldn't "simplify" the playbooks to start the year is obvious. What would happen if they came right out of the gate and had the most easily recognizeable and defeatable defense & offense out there? Then what, have a training camp during the bye week?
It may be true that Fewell and Gilbride try to run too complex of schemes, but they have won with these schemes, and the alternative, what we are seeing now may be good (simple), but we haven't face any real competition the last two weeks.
I agree that most teams probably run similar stuff as we do. I just think that we are out-thinking ourselves here on offense. We have skilled players in Cruz, Nicks, Randle and even Jernigan to a degree. Let these guys just play and not think. If I know going to the line I am faster than the DB and I am running a go-route, why can't I just go burn the guy instead of reading how he is playing me and adjusting? If I know the DB is soft across the middle, let me keep running that, rather than try to take what he is "giving me". I don't think the system is dumb or bad, but I just don't think its necessary when it's lead to so many turnovers this season.
in the sight adjustments that need to be made for the WRs. The concept of the QB and WR being on the same page twice, pre snap read & post snap read, is really the foundation of our system.
That allows for zero margin for error by the WR. If the WR makes an error it falls in Eli's stat column.
We have made adjustments but this is not our offense. If they want to change systems in the off season, I'd be very happy. I am tired of seeing the ball go one way and WR go another.
that this same thing happened during the last Super Bowl season I believe it was. The defense looked confused especially the defensive backs. The defense was simplified and played a lot better after that.
I was wondering why they don't just have a simplified system from day one and keep it that way adding a wrinkle here or there if needed.
Because now that we've eliminated pre-snap checks, we're going to be in trouble against better QB's who can figure out what we're running since we're sticking with the original call and not deviating. It works nicely against guys like Freeman and Barkley and it'll probably work against Pryor.. but a guy like Rodgers is going to be able to figure out what we're doing and exploit the shit out of it if we can't get back to having some checks.
You kind of need some complexity in this league because you'll get feasted on if you don't.
Offensively, I think we could do without all the option routes but you need to be able to counter what teams want to do to you. When you get too simple, you pigeonhole yourself and will find yourself getting painted into a corner.
complexity to some extent with more tendency breakers. If complexity is causing miscommunications than it's an issue. On offense, it's a pain in the fucking ass. If we all took a shot for everytime we heard the term miscommunication we'd be drunk by the end of the 1st Q.
I am tired of that shit on offense. I want a change. I do like the Gilbride adjustments. I do like the Fewell adjustments. Keep the offense dink and dunk, this way no one fucks up their sight adjustments. I think it makes things easier when you can dump it off to a RB or FB and have them make a play.
I am curious to see what tendency breakers we implement after the bye week.
that the Packers had a "few simple plays." Lombardi worked with the available materials. When he had Hornung and Taylor and an o-line of young studs, they were a running team with a few simple plays. When those guys were gone and the o-line was older, they became a down the field passing team. Lombardi's last year with the Packers, he was working in motion, reverses and other plays to take advantage of Travis Williams' speed. When he went to the Redskins, they were a controlled short passing team.
What Lombardi's teams were was drilled so they executed as second nature. People forget that in his first life, Lombardi was a teacher.
I don't know why it is so difficult to comprehend that when you start off with little training camp, various o-line combinations (we have started the same o-line combo two games in a row once this season- last week), various running backs (the only rb we have who has been with the team since training camp is Cox), two new te's and feeding more responsibilities to young receivers, nothing about a modern NFL offense is going to be "simple."
On the defensive side of the ball, you can sure "simplify" things when you aren't trying to cover 3 or 4 holes in the defense with smoke and mirrors. Beason and Hill have covered over a couple of those holes so there isn't as much need for the smoke and mirrors.
I know he had hamstring issues but it was working against Vick as well.
Vick took less than 20 total snaps and only attempted 9 passes. He's also the complete opposite of a cerebral QB who can read defenses. He has always relied on his athletic ability to succeed and when he has a bad wheel and can't run, he's an absolutely useless player. I really wouldn't hang my hat on what we did to him Sunday at all.
Again, I like a lot of the things I've seen from the defense this year but I've been saying that since before the adjustments as well.
aren't really buying into the concept that things are simplified as the year goes on and we start out really complex.
While that would be a pseudo-explanation for this year's start, how would that concept apply to most other years where we start 6-2?
I think Headhunter started this tread in jest and a lot of people are assuming we have outrageous complexity that needs to be made simple.
Like I've said too many times on this topic - it makes no sense that we would simplify things, that he simplification would result in winning, and then we would intentionally make everything more complex.
I was thinking about introducing an anecdote from his dominant "simple" plays "great execution" teams.
Back then players ( you remember this from Instant Replay) often played with in game concussions and teams had little depth behind the starters
Separate story: Its the Ice Bowl
Its the Fourth Quarter. Its the modern high complexity glamour super team called the Dallas Cowboys vs the old NFL aging veterans of Green Bay
Its -13 degrees.
Green Bay has to go down the field
The only have seven kinds of plays. But the Ol frozen and frostbite and brain fogged from the head slaps of the Dallas front line....knows the plays so deeply its just muscle memory by now
Dallas knew what was coming. The whole stadium knows the plays. The TV audience knows the plays
It does not matter. Green Bay drives the field and punches it in
Unfortunately, that story of executional excellence despite simplicity was in an NFl that no longer exists.
Green Bay was loaded with players who were on one team all their lives and was a collection of stars beyond stars. I forget how many were HOF players...and how many were the top players at their positions at the time
That was from a time way before "competitive balance" rules
I always said we start out 6-2, our offense is playing well. Our defense is staying in there. Usually by then 8 games in more tape is available on both sides of the ball. Injuries start occurring and that's when we play a very hard stretch. Without tendency breakers I notice it's the same shit. Our offense tends to struggle and our defense gets owned.
We saw this last season where the offense started to slow down unusually so for them. Pre season this offense was a shit show, but we passed it off as pre season. Though I was worried because they looked very off. That followed us to our current situation where we had to simplify things now offensively.
Defensively, it's been reported as well. I know I posted things in 2011 after the redskins game and before the Jets xmas game.
I think our issue has been when the schemes, on both sides, have issues where we constantly have miscommunications which hurt us big time. On offense, it's ball go one way WR goes another. On defense, it's WR goes on a go route and he is wide open. Cb and S look at each other like, WTF, that's your guy. Fuck that, no, that was your guy. And everyone looks like shit staring at each other like what just happened.
That's when here from day 1. That bad pass by Brady to Welker in the SB was a result of 1/2 of the field got a call and the other didn't get it. This was in the SB!! Miscommunications has been the theme of both systems when you get right down to it.
To believe this idea of simplification, people have to buy into the idea that we have hugely complex schemes that operated great for part of season's, then needed to be "simplified" to start winning again after a losing streak.
Then after we win, we have to believe the coaches said, "Ah, fuck what was working. Let's make things complex again", and the cycle continued over and over again.
That's why the argument is made by several people that this isn't an issue about complexity or simplicity - it is a matter of making adjustments. Adjustments that have both complex elements to them as well as more basic ones. A football season is so fluid that adjustments occur constantly - within games and within weeks.
The idea that we make things complex, and then dumb then down just to win and decide that we need to make things complex again to lose is completely laughable. And unsupportable.
Opponent blames Gilbride not Eli for Giants' turnovers....
Emlen'sGremlins : 6/23/2011 2:15 pm
....according to the Sporting News 2011 Pro Football Preview.
View From The Other Sideline
The Book On...Eli Manning
"I really think Eli's not going to have the turnover-prone year that he had last year. I don't think he's going down; I think he's still trending upwards. My opinion is it falls on (offensive coordinator Kevin) Gilbride. I really think his offense, with the players they have, neeeds to be - I hate to say this - dumbed down. It's too complicated, especially with receivers and the number of young guys they have there. They're required to do a lot more than most teams as far as options on routes. ...
"They've got a very, very complicated passing offense and, couple that with the turnovers, and it was kind of a little bit of a disaster there. The turnovers really killed them. The receivers not really being where they should be a lot of times caused a lot of turnovers. ...
From 2011
Former Giants linebacker Antonio Pierce called out the team’s defensive coordinator and players for their inability to stop opposing offenses.
“They have to find those one or two defensive calls that work for you and simplify the play calling, and that starts with Perry Fewell,” Pierce said. “Sometimes coaches put too much in there and there’s too much on the plate and obviously when you have young linebackers in the lineup and you’ve got guys in and out, you’re going to have mistakes.”
This just about suggests the coaching staff is incompetent, then. Â
And isn't able to see and grasp what just a bunch of dudes on a message board can.
In which case, that utter incompetence would be the answer to the question. Or they're just really, really stubborn. Which, frankly, would also qualify as incompetence.
and was one of the main reasons I wanted Fewell gone.
Now he has done it again and has simplified this defense and allwed these guys to play with more freedom (there own words).
Also this actually goes back to the Bear game.
ARC tries to discredit what occurred because of the last 2 QBs we played, but this all began at the half of the Bear game. They simplified things then and the Bears went from going up and down the field...To 3 points in the second half....how much more proof do you need?
Yeah, how much more proof do you need then one game? Â
to them there is nothing that doesn't need to be changed.
Put them in from of the Mona Lisa and they will tell you how to paint it better.
I think coordinators are similar. If they they aren't adding all sorts of wrinkles to the game plan they feel like they are not doing their job.
I feel like PF has a tendency to get too clever for his own good and needs to be reigned from time to time. Or do a better job of getting the players ready to run his system.
There has been way too much talk of miscommunications and not being on the same page during his tenure for me to ignore and not think that he either can't teach his players or he has a tendency to out kick his coverage with regards to the complexity of the system he like to run.
like "They've got a very, very complicated passing offense... It's too complicated..." seem to make it pretty clear the Giants have one of, if not the most complicated offense in the league. We all see it with our own eyes, receivers going one way, ball going another. I don't want to hear it happens the same on other teams. Eli is on record pace for INTs!
What is so crazy about making it less frucking complicated?
Maybe next year when we have the same staff back because we went 4-12, we can screw up much, much worse and begin to adjust the offense and defense after only 4 horrific losses.
That fucking hurts!
I don't get the whole complicated offense and defense thing. Especially since its been an ongoing problem with these Giants. At the end of the day,you have to blame TC. Why wwouldn't he have already said to Fewell and Killdrive, "keep it simple"?
that Tree"
I don't know if simplification is the right word, but maybe an approach of mixing in easier plays early in the season, then adding in the complex stuff when you demonstrate you can handle it?
that Tree"
Head
Everyone has the same issues as we have as far as personnel. Problem is when one player makes a mistake it is an incomplete pass. No big deal. When they both make a mistake it is a pick. I am very sure, and of course there is no way me or anyone on here, that we are not the most complicated offense out there.
Look no further than how TC's team's have started in the past. We have always come out strong. Its the late season collapses that have been our achilles heel. This year is the exception not the rule.
Where I think we get into trouble is when injuries start piling up and less experienced guys have to fill in who may not have as good of an understanding of the playbook. Hence the need for the change.
I'm starting to think its the later. Complex route running? Really? How difficult can a route possibly be?
These aren't guys that just got plopped into football this year, they have been around it the majority of their lives.
I'm not doubting that things may be harder to pick up with different packages, or having to audible, etc, but I think its somewhat of myth here to be honest.
It could be the staff felt the schemas put in place at the beginning of the year is what they thought was needed to get the team into the playoffs. For a number of reasons that proved to be a bad decision.
It probably takes a lot more memorization for a player to be able to do his job right with this offense. Those players also spoke about a lot of decision making just prior to the snap.
If true, one can easily understand why receivers who are not gifted mentally or rather new to the team often blow the route they are supposed to run.
======================================================
This year's recent offensive adjustments hasn't been intentionally to simplify things but to get the ball out quicker and run shorter routes.
I'm starting to think its the later. Complex route running? Really? How difficult can a route possibly be?
These aren't guys that just got plopped into football this year, they have been around it the majority of their lives.
I'm not doubting that things may be harder to pick up with different packages, or having to audible, etc, but I think its somewhat of myth here to be honest.
Uconn,
The routes are "complex" because Eli and the WR have to both see the same thing in the D to decide which way the route will go.
For instance, if a defender is playing 5 yards off the LOS and showing man coverage, the route should be a 10 yard hook route. If the man is playing bump coverage, the route should be a 10 yard in-route.
However, if both Eli and the WR are not seeing things the exact same way, the ball will be thrown one way and the WR will run another, and we end up looking like we're on the wrong page or with an INT.
I'm with everyone here and just have set routes instead of "options" for the WRs to run. Get back to nut-and-bolt football.
I tend to think its a mix, but it's really hard for me to blame the scheme when we won 2 SB's with it, with teams far more talented (and younger on the o-line).
I would like to see the offense function under a different philosophy...
the "simplification" buzzwords have been used by players and coaches alike in the past, and I think its valid that we as fans can ask, what is the deal with why it continues to be so difficult for everyone to be on the same page year in and year out and that when certain things are done it "CLICKS"
try to figure out how to make it CLICK all the time instead of changing it back to times where it didn't.
Another reason they wouldn't "simplify" the playbooks to start the year is obvious. What would happen if they came right out of the gate and had the most easily recognizeable and defeatable defense & offense out there? Then what, have a training camp during the bye week?
It may be true that Fewell and Gilbride try to run too complex of schemes, but they have won with these schemes, and the alternative, what we are seeing now may be good (simple), but we haven't face any real competition the last two weeks.
That allows for zero margin for error by the WR. If the WR makes an error it falls in Eli's stat column.
We have made adjustments but this is not our offense. If they want to change systems in the off season, I'd be very happy. I am tired of seeing the ball go one way and WR go another.
I was wondering why they don't just have a simplified system from day one and keep it that way adding a wrinkle here or there if needed.
You kind of need some complexity in this league because you'll get feasted on if you don't.
Offensively, I think we could do without all the option routes but you need to be able to counter what teams want to do to you. When you get too simple, you pigeonhole yourself and will find yourself getting painted into a corner.
I am tired of that shit on offense. I want a change. I do like the Gilbride adjustments. I do like the Fewell adjustments. Keep the offense dink and dunk, this way no one fucks up their sight adjustments. I think it makes things easier when you can dump it off to a RB or FB and have them make a play.
I am curious to see what tendency breakers we implement after the bye week.
What Lombardi's teams were was drilled so they executed as second nature. People forget that in his first life, Lombardi was a teacher.
I don't know why it is so difficult to comprehend that when you start off with little training camp, various o-line combinations (we have started the same o-line combo two games in a row once this season- last week), various running backs (the only rb we have who has been with the team since training camp is Cox), two new te's and feeding more responsibilities to young receivers, nothing about a modern NFL offense is going to be "simple."
On the defensive side of the ball, you can sure "simplify" things when you aren't trying to cover 3 or 4 holes in the defense with smoke and mirrors. Beason and Hill have covered over a couple of those holes so there isn't as much need for the smoke and mirrors.
Vick took less than 20 total snaps and only attempted 9 passes. He's also the complete opposite of a cerebral QB who can read defenses. He has always relied on his athletic ability to succeed and when he has a bad wheel and can't run, he's an absolutely useless player. I really wouldn't hang my hat on what we did to him Sunday at all.
Again, I like a lot of the things I've seen from the defense this year but I've been saying that since before the adjustments as well.
While that would be a pseudo-explanation for this year's start, how would that concept apply to most other years where we start 6-2?
I think Headhunter started this tread in jest and a lot of people are assuming we have outrageous complexity that needs to be made simple.
Like I've said too many times on this topic - it makes no sense that we would simplify things, that he simplification would result in winning, and then we would intentionally make everything more complex.
Makes no sense at all - because it isn't true.
I was thinking about introducing an anecdote from his dominant "simple" plays "great execution" teams.
Back then players ( you remember this from Instant Replay) often played with in game concussions and teams had little depth behind the starters
Separate story: Its the Ice Bowl
Its the Fourth Quarter. Its the modern high complexity glamour super team called the Dallas Cowboys vs the old NFL aging veterans of Green Bay
Its -13 degrees.
Green Bay has to go down the field
The only have seven kinds of plays. But the Ol frozen and frostbite and brain fogged from the head slaps of the Dallas front line....knows the plays so deeply its just muscle memory by now
Dallas knew what was coming. The whole stadium knows the plays. The TV audience knows the plays
It does not matter. Green Bay drives the field and punches it in
Unfortunately, that story of executional excellence despite simplicity was in an NFl that no longer exists.
Green Bay was loaded with players who were on one team all their lives and was a collection of stars beyond stars. I forget how many were HOF players...and how many were the top players at their positions at the time
That was from a time way before "competitive balance" rules
People and organizations act illogically all the time
Secondly you are countering the argument that PF is a bad DC with "that can't be true, that would make him a bad DC"
We saw this last season where the offense started to slow down unusually so for them. Pre season this offense was a shit show, but we passed it off as pre season. Though I was worried because they looked very off. That followed us to our current situation where we had to simplify things now offensively.
Defensively, it's been reported as well. I know I posted things in 2011 after the redskins game and before the Jets xmas game.
I think our issue has been when the schemes, on both sides, have issues where we constantly have miscommunications which hurt us big time. On offense, it's ball go one way WR goes another. On defense, it's WR goes on a go route and he is wide open. Cb and S look at each other like, WTF, that's your guy. Fuck that, no, that was your guy. And everyone looks like shit staring at each other like what just happened.
That's when here from day 1. That bad pass by Brady to Welker in the SB was a result of 1/2 of the field got a call and the other didn't get it. This was in the SB!! Miscommunications has been the theme of both systems when you get right down to it.
To believe this idea of simplification, people have to buy into the idea that we have hugely complex schemes that operated great for part of season's, then needed to be "simplified" to start winning again after a losing streak.
Then after we win, we have to believe the coaches said, "Ah, fuck what was working. Let's make things complex again", and the cycle continued over and over again.
That's why the argument is made by several people that this isn't an issue about complexity or simplicity - it is a matter of making adjustments. Adjustments that have both complex elements to them as well as more basic ones. A football season is so fluid that adjustments occur constantly - within games and within weeks.
The idea that we make things complex, and then dumb then down just to win and decide that we need to make things complex again to lose is completely laughable. And unsupportable.
Emlen'sGremlins : 6/23/2011 2:15 pm
....according to the Sporting News 2011 Pro Football Preview.
View From The Other Sideline
The Book On...Eli Manning
"I really think Eli's not going to have the turnover-prone year that he had last year. I don't think he's going down; I think he's still trending upwards. My opinion is it falls on (offensive coordinator Kevin) Gilbride. I really think his offense, with the players they have, neeeds to be - I hate to say this - dumbed down. It's too complicated, especially with receivers and the number of young guys they have there. They're required to do a lot more than most teams as far as options on routes. ...
"They've got a very, very complicated passing offense and, couple that with the turnovers, and it was kind of a little bit of a disaster there. The turnovers really killed them. The receivers not really being where they should be a lot of times caused a lot of turnovers. ...
From 2011
Former Giants linebacker Antonio Pierce called out the team’s defensive coordinator and players for their inability to stop opposing offenses.
“They have to find those one or two defensive calls that work for you and simplify the play calling, and that starts with Perry Fewell,” Pierce said. “Sometimes coaches put too much in there and there’s too much on the plate and obviously when you have young linebackers in the lineup and you’ve got guys in and out, you’re going to have mistakes.”
In which case, that utter incompetence would be the answer to the question. Or they're just really, really stubborn. Which, frankly, would also qualify as incompetence.
But I find it hard to believe.
Or something.
Now he has done it again and has simplified this defense and allwed these guys to play with more freedom (there own words).
Also this actually goes back to the Bear game.
ARC tries to discredit what occurred because of the last 2 QBs we played, but this all began at the half of the Bear game. They simplified things then and the Bears went from going up and down the field...To 3 points in the second half....how much more proof do you need?
Lock this thread now. It's ovah.
Put them in from of the Mona Lisa and they will tell you how to paint it better.
I think coordinators are similar. If they they aren't adding all sorts of wrinkles to the game plan they feel like they are not doing their job.
I feel like PF has a tendency to get too clever for his own good and needs to be reigned from time to time. Or do a better job of getting the players ready to run his system.
There has been way too much talk of miscommunications and not being on the same page during his tenure for me to ignore and not think that he either can't teach his players or he has a tendency to out kick his coverage with regards to the complexity of the system he like to run.
Is that a nonsensical and unsupportable opinion?
What is so crazy about making it less frucking complicated?