for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Why not start the season with simplified Offense & Defense ?

Headhunter : 10/30/2013 7:45 am
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?
Pages: 1 2 3 <<Prev | Show All |  Next>>
If it's not true....then  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 1:37 pm : link
why have several players and coaches on record using the word "things were simplified" themselves???
Why is that so hard for people to believe?
This team has had communication issues since Fewell's arrival...that in itself lends itself to it was probably overly complex and players have gone to the coaches (this is on record) and things have been simplified and have allowed the defense to play better (see 2011 SB run).
Why are his schemes so complex?...I have no idea but it is clear that when things are simplified the defense plays better....THAT'S A FACT.
Vibe - you find it hard to believe the coaching staff is stubborn?  
Blue Baller : 10/30/2013 1:39 pm : link

Arc - come at me bro
When they play against bad teams with no QB  
vibe4giants : 10/30/2013 1:44 pm : link
they play better.

That's a fact.

The rest is your speculation based on player quotes. Not always the most reliable sources.

If it is so easy to see...  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 1:44 pm : link
then it should also be easy to explain when they flip the switch back to complexity. Do they do it in the off-season? If so, then why would they start 6-2, or did hey just decide to do it this year, go to 0-6 and say "Aw, Fuck. What did we do?"

For some reason, people have correlated wins with simplicity and losses with complexity. Seems to be on the same plane as those who claim we are flat in every loss.

This whole argument probably goes back to the ridiculous notion that fans think we should go 16-0 every year unless somehow the team (players and/or coaches) fuck it up. That the opponent is never better and we should win each game unless we do something idiotic. Like in this case, make things too complex. Simplify and it is an easy win. Just look at the last two games! It HAS to be simplification!
Like I said, if they're being stubborn in the face of losing  
vibe4giants : 10/30/2013 1:47 pm : link
that would make them horrible at their jobs.

And if one believes that, just call for their heads rather than trying to analyze why incompetents (the essential premise here) do their jobs the way they do.
FMiC  
LG in NYC : 10/30/2013 1:51 pm : link
Commenting on only your most recent post and not this thread as a whole... there are a bunch of people here (me included) who would complain quite loudly after a Win about we saw as flaws in the offense or defense and yet were shouted down with cries of "We won! Why would you complain?!"

So for many it is not as simple as wins and losses but rather what we see (with our amateur eyes, mind you) as long running issues on both sides of the ball.
RE: If it's not true....then  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 1:57 pm : link
In comment 11310728 Geeman said:
Quote:
why have several players and coaches on record using the word "things were simplified" themselves???
Why is that so hard for people to believe?
This team has had communication issues since Fewell's arrival...that in itself lends itself to it was probably overly complex and players have gone to the coaches (this is on record) and things have been simplified and have allowed the defense to play better (see 2011 SB run).
Why are his schemes so complex?...I have no idea but it is clear that when things are simplified the defense plays better....THAT'S A FACT.


Again.. it's not about the fucking scheme. The scheme didn't change. Why can't people figure this out?

We are running the SAME defense we have been running all year. The "simplifying" they did was getting rid of pre-snap checks (or.. defensive audibles). They're making one call in the huddle and running that play. All of the plays they are running were all in the playbook and within the scheme to begin with. Fewell never changed the scheme. He never simplified it.

If Gilbride decided to stop Eli from making pre-snap reads/adjustments and just had them run whichever play was called in the huddle regardless of the coverage they see, would you say they "simplified the offense" or changed the system?
If this is directed at me - I never said this  
Blue Baller : 10/30/2013 1:58 pm : link
"For some reason, people have correlated wins with simplicity and losses with complexity. Seems to be on the same plane as those who claim we are flat in every loss."

Football is a complicated game and many factors go into the performance we see any given Sunday. I'm just discussing one aspect here.


Arc - do you want to talk to Vibe about TC's stubbornness with regards to playing Diehl or does that violate the circle jerk code of ethics?

Whoa  
Headhunter : 10/30/2013 1:59 pm : link
What this fan's expectations for the season have 0 to do with the complexity or lack there of of their offensive be and defensive schemes . To turn this around to fit your argument by making those of us who feel that the comments that other players and members of the Giants into wins and loses and if simple means more wins is nonsense
Vibe, I think the coaching staff is just stubborn  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 1:59 pm : link
They all have strong beliefs in what they do, which isn't always a bad thing.
It starts with Coughlin and how he was stubborn to a fault about how he runs things, until he finally mellowed out and he became more successful and relateable. That's just one example. He's also loyal to a fault and you can use Deihl as an example there. KG and PF are his subordinates, so it would make sense that they too have that trait.
These guys are all detail oriented and enjoy the complications that come with there schemes, however keeping all players on the same page (factor in FA, injuries and young players, and less time due to the CBA) all of that impacts teams that install complicated schemes and the Giants obviously have one of the more complicated.
It's not the sole reason for the bad start this season, but there's no denying it's a part of the issues surrounding all the turnovers on offense and communication issues on defense.
"Take a handful of plays and run them to  
PeterS : 10/30/2013 2:02 pm : link
perfection." Vice Lombardi. Also, "Before it was the Packer sweep it was the Giant sweep." Frank Gifford.
RE: If this is directed at me - I never said this  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:04 pm : link
In comment 11310778 Blue Baller said:
Quote:
Arc - do you want to talk to Vibe about TC's stubbornness with regards to playing Diehl or does that violate the circle jerk code of ethics?


There's no stubbornness. David Diehl sucks but the reality of the unfortunate situation is that we have zero better alternatives right now.

So.. there's nothing to talk about.
Yes this topic has been addressed in the previous threads  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:12 pm : link
It's called stubborness and/or being in love with something so much that you ignore all the other signs until you are basically pounded into the ground with it's failure....

This organization LOVES read and react principles in their schemes. Because in theory if it is executed perfectly it can be almost impossible to stop both offensively and defensively. Problem is these are football players playing the game not robots. Too much complexity and or in play adjustments and guys are playing passively and not aggressively anymore. Your greatest athletes look slow and tenative. It's like a ball and shackles for your entire team.

Unfortunately, It's been going on for years from Rod Rust to Perry Fewell and it goes all the way up to ownership and their philosophies.

There are plenty of articles,quotes and etc. talking about this in the thread linked below.

Turnaround on D - ( New Window )
How about last year - anything to discuss from then?  
Blue Baller : 10/30/2013 2:13 pm : link
I can probably find volumes just like this complain about TCs stubbornness WRT playing DD

That's fine...
arcarsenal : 3/14/2013 4:18 pm : link
But I pretty strongly believe that this is an instance where the front office isn't right.

I saw Dave Diehl get beaten like an old drum far too many times last year (and in years prior) for me to believe there's any reason why he should be getting playing time on a regular basis. He's simply not a good offensive lineman anymore and was never much better than solid to begin with.

It's not hard for me to believe there's a loyalty factor here that's clouding the decision making process. It does happen, unfortunately.
Link - ( New Window )
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:13 pm : link
Copy & paste
Copy & paste
Copy & paste
Copy & paste
Copy & paste

Who's stubborn again? That's only the 10th or so time you've posted the same fucking thing.
Some quotes/articles etc.  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:15 pm : link
Why does the Giants organization love read and react elements in their system so much?

Over the years we've seen this philosophy stifle so many talented teams . It's sad what it has done to teams that could have been so much more


Heck Remember Rod Rust?
The Giants org has always had a hard on for read and react crap......

You would have thought they would have learned by now finally....
Some LT quotes after the Sheridan year (ESPN.com)

Before the Giants opened Door No. 2 and selected South Florida's Jason Pierre-Paul with the 15th overall pick, Taylor was back to blitzing a Giants defense that surrendered 40-plus points three times in the final four games of '09.

The very unit that had defined LT's two championship teams and had crushed Tom Brady's 19-0 dream had been reduced to a practical joke under Bill Sheridan, the ousted defensive coordinator who appeared to embrace a Charmin-soft approach.

"You can't play read and react and win in this league," Taylor said. "Rod Rust came in with that read and react [in 1992], and I've never in my life seen so many points scored on us.

"The Giants need to get back to attacking on defense. Don't worry about what the offense is going to do and react to that. Attack them and make them worry about what you're going to do."

More info on Rust and Fewell regarding read and react (readandreact.net)

It is unclear why ANYONE would wish to fill those shoes and, from the start, the 1991/92 New York Giants appeared headed for utter disaster. Rowdy Roddy Rust preached the Read-and-React Defense, which turned out to be a complete abyss. It thickly stifled superstars like Lawrence Taylor, Pepper Johnson, Carl Banks, and their beguiled, wandering teammates — forcing a naturally aggressive, Super Bowl-caliber defense to sit back on its heels and wait for the offense to make a move.

In 1992, the team went 6-10. Handley and Rust were fired.


Read and React but dont overreact (Daily News.com)
BY RALPH VACCHIANO
There was a players revolt 18 years ago when Ray Handley and Rod Rust tried to turn a once-aggressive Giants defense into a passive read-and-react team. A similar approach didn’t work so well in the final years of Tim Lewis’ reign either.

Perry Fewell, though, seems ready to give it a try again.

It’s not all of what his varied and seemingly complex defensive approach is about, but there’s no doubt that Fewell wants the Giants’ secondary to employ a “Read and React” approach to coverage during this season which is now just one week away. I wrote a detailed story on the Giants’ new defensive scheme in today’s Daily News.

What I found was that, unlike the ’92, the current players like it. And they think it can be a surprisingly aggressive approach, too.

(Uh what else do you expect the players to say Ralph? Are they going to publicly bash their new DC?) "Perry Fewell's defense is made to bend, but don't break," cornerback Terrell Thomas said. “We’re going to give up underneath throws. That wasn't what the Giants' defense was known for the last couple of years. And I think that's going to be a hard adjustment for the fans and media to see. But I think the overall objective is to create more turnovers."


Now we have BOTH an overly complex read and react offense AND defense. Yikes. WIll this organization ever learn?

THis is not chess this is football. It's an agressive game! take away too much of that agression form your players and bad things happen.

.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:15 pm : link
Again.. Diehl is awful. Right now, there's no one to replace him with.

Last year, I wanted Locklear to play instead because he was better. Then Locklear got hurt and we had no other choice.
I get so confused here sometimes  
SwirlingEddie : 10/30/2013 2:17 pm : link
Are we supposed to be mad at Gilbride because he keeps calling the same predictable plays or because he refuses to run the same plays over and over?
Did that..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 2:20 pm : link
stubborn motherfucker JerseyJoe just repost the same old quotes as his way of arguing?

Jesus Christ you can't make a better character up.
Who said they Changed the scheme???  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 2:26 pm : link
Show me anywhere where that was said???
CRICKETS
Again and try to combine reading and comprehension with this...The scheme was SIMPLIFIED, these are the words of COACHES AND PLAYERS. I promise you I'm not makingthis up. I don't know what issue some of you have with that word "simplfied", but this in FACT took place. How much of the scheme and/or game plans have been SIMPLIFIED can be questioned, but there is NO DOUBT that the COACHES SIMPLIFIED the schemes/playbook in a way that has allowed the players to play better. It's a FACT not an OPINION.
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:30 pm : link
Holy crap. YOU keep saying it. You just said they "simplified the scheme".

Do you know what a scheme is? They didn't simplify or change anything about the scheme. They're still running the same 4-3 defense with the same coverages they've been running all year. The "simplification" is that they're not changing plays at the LOS based on what the offense shows.
LOL it's OK Fatman ,please come up with another one  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:31 pm : link
of youre of so witty dissertations on why SIMPLIFICATION IS NOT REALLY SIMPLIFICATION

Or when that's really not working so well for ya anymore
let's backtrack and say: 'ok well now there might be a simplification but it is only one small little itty bitty thing' or 'it's one of soooo many factors and all the OTHER factors make up 99% of the reason there is an improvement!'

LOL keep it up! You're doing great!

It's not that hard to just admit you were wrong buddy. Yes your elelphant size pride might take a hit but in the end you would have been man enough to just come clean.
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:33 pm : link
And then there's this..

Quote:
BBI elitists go read all the quotes.....The simplification
GmenDynasty : 2:07 pm : link : reply
was on more than one level including the pass rush schemes but yes please carry on trying to figure out how simplifying DOESN'T really mean simplifying.


Except for the fact that none of the players said anything about "simplifying the pass rush schemes". Everything I've seen has been about checks and pre-snap adjustments. This isn't about "simplifying the pass rush schemes".
Arc, I think you stated it best....  
Tom [Giants fan] : 10/30/2013 2:37 pm : link
I am not good with words and I think you explained it the way it needed to be explained.

It isn't that they changed the system. It was simplified by eliminating adjustments at pre-snap. The players having to not only worry about their assignments but what defense are they going to run and what is their responsibility when the ball is snapped. I never thought they changed the defense itself. But the way you explained it is the way it was simplified.

They simplified the approach. To me, that is everything when the players only have to worry about what they need to do.

If you call a defense for 3rd and 12 and worry about running that defense and not the fact they came to the line differently than expected and try to adjust to that makes it easier to focus on your responsibility.
Has your argument really..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 2:37 pm : link
reverted to me saying we never changed a thing before?

That's what you've had to resort to? Since day 1, I said we made changes. I even agreed that they simplified the terminology.

But MORE IMPORTANTLY, I said that was not the main reason for success, nor was it considered simplifying the scheme. You flat out said we removed pages form the playbook. You flat out said the schemes were dumbed down.

But in your million tries to repaste shit, you keep ignoring that. You started with an incorrect premise and it has actually gotten worse since then. Now, you are trying to argue that I said NO changes took place which is an outright lie.

Par for the course, but an outright, fucking lie.

Show me a post where I said nothing changed. I can actually go back into the archives where you said pages were taken out of the playbook. Show me wherever I said nothing was changed at all.
realllllly arc?  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:38 pm : link
so when we find you the quote for that one too, you gonna still say the sky is yellow with little itty bitty polka dots?
And no matter how you say it.....  
Tom [Giants fan] : 10/30/2013 2:38 pm : link
the defense was simplified. In this case it was simplified by not changing the scheme but by eliminating some things they were doing after the defense was called.
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:43 pm : link
Find me a quote from a player who says that during half time of the Bears game, they "simplified the pass rush scheme".

Here's one article you linked..

Quote:
The key? Eliminating so many calls.

"I think, you know, Perry is pretty good at scheming, he really is," Justin Tuck said. "But sometimes you can have so much and it slows you down because, mentally, you're thinking about all the checks you have."


From the newsday article..

Quote:
They were getting bogged down with calls and checks and all of the intricacies involved in their system. They wanted it simplified.


Quote:
Tuck called it a "check with me'' defense that the Giants played for most of the first half of the season. And rather than being upset with the coach who put them in that situation, Tuck said he's happy things seem to have been straightened out.


I see a lot of guys talking about checks. I see absolutely nothing about "simplifying the pass rush scheme".
Fats, blaaaah blaaah blaaaah blah are you  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:43 pm : link
a politician or lawyer in real life?

You take the cake at BBI for saying a whole lot of nothing and changing arguments then dressing it up all nice and pretty with alot of haughty empty verbiage.
arc I'd pull it up  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:44 pm : link
for ya but I'd rather not copy/paste again lol
How do you know exactly what was simplified???  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 2:45 pm : link
Please share for this entire board your proof of what was simplified?
that's first...
second...even if pre reads were "simplified"....SO WHAT???
The point once again is that Fewell SIMPLIFIED SOMETHING....THAT IS A FACT...that's all I've said, unless you can prove something different.
If taking out "pre-snap reads" is the  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 2:48 pm : link
simplifying that took place....GOOD....whatever it was that allows these players to play better is what should be done.
The players have once again went to fewell and got him to simplify things and the defense has responded....that's all I care about are the results.
RE: How do you know exactly what was simplified???  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:48 pm : link
In comment 11310912 Geeman said:
Quote:
Please share for this entire board your proof of what was simplified?
that's first...
second...even if pre reads were "simplified"....SO WHAT???
The point once again is that Fewell SIMPLIFIED SOMETHING....THAT IS A FACT...that's all I've said, unless you can prove something different.


I just showed you.

And for the.. I don't know.. 500th time? I never said nothing changed. I'm telling you exactly what changed. Joe says they simplified the pass rush scheme. None of these players (that I have seen) has said anything about that. Thomas and Tuck are both talking about pre-snap checks.

Antrel Rolle was asked about it yesterday.. he said "we didn't really change much of anything, we just made some small adjustments".
I'm pretty fucking sure...  
FatMan in Charlotte : 10/30/2013 2:49 pm : link
my argument has stayed constant this entire time.

Meanwhile, there are about a dozen poster who can chronologically show where your argument has changed.

Just because you keep trying to say things I didn't say, doesn't make them true. Meanwhile, it is a FACT you said pages of the playbook were taken out.
RE: arc I'd pull it up  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 2:50 pm : link
In comment 11310910 GmenDynasty said:
Quote:
for ya but I'd rather not copy/paste again lol


Well, that's awfully convenient ain't it, Joseph.
Unless  
AnishPatel : 10/30/2013 2:51 pm : link
someone is recording the games and doing defensive game break downs in detail, it's hard to find out what was simplified. You would have to go by what the players are saying. Simplification can come in the form of many things: Xs & Os, techniques of players in various positions, terminology to get the plays in quicker. It can be anything or everything. If the answer is not given by someone in the media, then the average fan needs to record and break down the games before and after the report of something being simplified and find it.
Tom said it best!!!  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 2:56 pm : link
which is basically that hey simplifying really MEANS simplifying!!! Awesome Job Tom!

Arc and Fatman please continue to explain why simplifying does NOT equal simplification! Now, if you explain that side better and convince more people, I think you guys deserve the cigar ALOT more than Tom does!
So if you don't know....what are we debating here???  
Geeman : 10/30/2013 2:57 pm : link
We know they simplified something....that's a FACT.
do we know what exactly or the degree of the simplification?
I don't know nor does anyone else at this point.
But there was certainly a meeting on simplifying things having to do with this defense. That must include everyone in my opinion because both Thomas and Tuck were clearly happy about it. If you want to call it an adjustment (sounds like Rolle downplaying it) Rolle may have been trying to be PC and probably sensed how his words could make Fewell look, may have worded it like that for that very reason (who knows that's speculation on my part).
But we do have enough commentary from players and coaches to let us know they Simplified some things and the communication is better and the athletes are being allowed to play and do less thinking and reading. I don't think that can be debated.
I believe FMiC  
Mike L. : 10/30/2013 3:00 pm : link
is an engineer like myself. We normally tend to think logically. Tuck said they approached PF during halftime of the Bears game and some changes were made. Those changes, it seems me, have made a difference. Logically, I don't know why those discussions weren't held immediately after the Carolina game and changes made then. In regards to David Dhiel, I watched Brewer start and play the entire game against Dallas at LG, and do the same against a very good KC defense at RG. He did as good or better than DD from what I saw, and from watching Mosely start against the 1's in pre-season, he looked better than Brewer. Logically, I don't see why people assume there is no one better. Wasn't the same agument made after Cruz was benched after his first drop against Washington in week 1 of 2011? We signed Stokely casue no one was better? The case, logically, for playing a 2nd or 3rd year guy over DD is they have a chance to improve with more playing time, which should help down the road. If they feel DD will help Pugh progress, then that makes some sense.
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 3:00 pm : link
Joe.. are you going to pull up those quotes about simplifying the pass rush scheme or not?

You seem to have everything saved somewhere and right at your finger tips so it shouldn't take more than a second or two.

If you can show me one of these players flat out saying that the pass rush scheme was "simplified", I will bow out of this and say I was wrong about that.
GD,  
AnishPatel : 10/30/2013 3:01 pm : link
You want to help your case? Start recording the games and do simply game breakdowns for the defense. Start there and document what you see. Compare that over the course of games and see what happens.

if you provide evidence based on what your thesis of your point is people will have to believe you whether like it or not. You will also be surprised by what you notice about the game as well. I did this with Spags system and our offense. You do that and you have the supporting evidence with you.

It helps when players say something was simplified too. But use that as the starting point, and if you do what I suggest then your claims will be backed by evidence.

Just remember simplification can come in many forms.
I have been making the case that.......  
Tom [Giants fan] : 10/30/2013 3:01 pm : link
things have been simplified for a few days now. But I never once thought they changed their schemes or calls.

I coached at the high school level and wouldn't have been able to change the calls or scheme midseason. I coached the defense and the calls were kept easy and never made the kids think.

That is kind of what I was thinking was going on. I'm not trying to directly compare high school with NFL but it just seems like the players don't have to think about what they are doing now.
Ok Arc but you still didn't answer the question  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 3:10 pm : link
And I know it's going to be tough for ya but if I provide the quote will you finally admit that simplification MEANS simplification?
Here you go.......  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 3:11 pm : link
After an Oct. 10 loss in Chicago dropped them to 0-6,
the Giants' defensive players met with their coaches to discuss some new ideas.
Players said Sunday that the meeting was an open and frank one in which players
offered suggestions about everything from changing coverages to simplifying the pass rush.
They all seem to agree it has helped."Just getting together and getting on the same page,"
safety Antrel Rolle said. "A lot of speaking to each other as men. Players trusting coaches,
coaches trusting players.
And I think that has showed up in our performance."
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 3:11 pm : link
Tom, I don't disagree with any of that.

I've been pretty consistent this entire time. I've never claimed that nothing changed. That would just be a ridiculous stance to take since the players flat out said they did.

All I'm contending is WHAT actually changed. As far as we know, the only thing they've said changed were the checks and pre-snap stuff. None of them said anything about the actual scheme changing (and like you said, you can't really change that mid-season).. and yet, Joe is here flat out saying they "simplified the pass rush scheme". And when I call him out on it, he goes back to the whole "you said they didn't simplify but you're admitting they simplified!"
.  
YAJ2112 : 10/30/2013 3:11 pm : link
Quote:
For the hundredth time Fatty and others
JerseyJoe : 1/30/2008 10:20 am : link
First off I'd like to personally thank Fatty for actually acknowledging/admitting that numerous sources have in fact said this system is extremely complex. That in itself is finally a good step for someone so prideful.

Secondly I will yet again clarify what I meant by simplification. I never said it meant taking out ALL option routes, thats absolutely false. However they have pared down the number of excessive option plays, they have started calling plays that complement our recievers skills sets the best. I.E motioning Toomer and finding the soft spot in the zone D (Toomer has been very good at this). Using Burresses size and calling more specific plays that take advantage of his skill vs. heavy option stuff that takes away from his aggressiveness. Also calling designed quick hitting plays with 1-2 primary quick hitting reads like slants and or rollouts designed to hit crossers etc.

It is a quite the change vs. calling predominantly long developing and/or multi-option plays where EVERYONE is a primary read and EACH reciever has up to 5 passing trees to choose from. That type of playcalling could make virtually any Qb's head swim (along with recievers high on AA but short on cerebral ability like Shock and Plax- hence the NUMEROUS mis-reads with a reciever going one way ball going the other).

Did i clear that up enough for you???

Joe
Mike fr Warwick : 1/30/2008 10:30 am : link
You are talking out your ass.<b>Describe an excessive option route.</b>The time a play takes to develop is in direct relation to the depth of the drop. When the ball does not come out at that step it is because people were not open not because it was designed that way. WRs do not chose from 5 passing trees on plays. Just make it up?


What is
dorgan : 1/30/2008 10:32 am : link
completely clear, is that you don't know shit about football.
Multiple passing trees?

Heh.
You talk our of your ass so much that your breath has got to be alarmingly bad.

Link - ( New Window )
.  
arcarsenal : 10/30/2013 3:13 pm : link
Ok, so they offered suggestions.

I have no idea if that means they actually changed them.

If they did, I'm wrong.
I didn't see the pass rushing scheme thing......  
Tom [Giants fan] : 10/30/2013 3:15 pm : link
but there aren't many ways to change or simplify that. Unless you just say go straight ahead. But that wouldn't make the defense better, it would make them predictable.
And Anish is right  
GmenDynasty : 10/30/2013 3:21 pm : link
if your car doesn't start and you don't know why every it's not starting doesn't mean something isn't broken.

We can only take educated guesses based on what we see from the performance on the field,the multiple missed communications on O and D year after year, and then the players and journalists comments and quotes in the media.

There has been enough evidence over the last 8 years 9for anyone who doesn't have an agenda or blind bias) to clearly see there is an extremely high level of complexity in our systems and that it is very likely this is something that the coaching staff and ownership strongly beleive in.
**Disclaimer**  
Headhunter : 10/30/2013 3:25 pm : link
"There is no guilt by association to be taken from this thread. The opinion expressed were made by individuals who only by the odds of having enough opinions on things will end up once in a blue moon with similar opinions to those that they wouldn't piss on if they were on fire"


carry on


Pages: 1 2 3 <<Prev | Show All |  Next>>
Back to the Corner