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?
It is obvious that the defense was too complex and something needed to be done about it. The Giants back in the last 6 games of '11 and the second half of the bears game DID SIMPLIFY to an extent that multiple players were quoted as being clearly happy with. The results defensively during the 6 game stretch as well as the last 10 quarters have been astoundingly better.
here is a post with Joe claiming plays were changed (while lecturing Dorgan in the process) Bad move on both parts:
Quote:
sad i have to explain this for your dorgy
JerseyJoe : 1/30/2008 11:30 am : link
multiple passing trees = multiple options routes for each recieving option on a given play. The number and complexity of the OVERALL reads/options far outnumber other playbooks and has been a main factor of miscommunications ,bad reads ints ,bad body language from Eli/WRs etc..
THIS facet has been pared down. I.E. instead of 10-15 overall options /reads/ adjustments the quarterback and recievers have to collectively make, it is now 5-10 and sometimes less on most of the plays.
Does it mean the playbook has changed? not necessarily. they could just be calling the less thought-intensive/'heavy read and react' type plays and focusing on calling plays that are simpler but still take full advantage of the D formation.
This is a shift to a playcalling based O (where the onus is more on the playcalling) vs. a QB based O (where the onus is more on the Qb to always make the right read)
get it now 'coach' or still too difficult to grasp?
This was 2008. Also from 2008 is my same argument - the one where I've said that things have changed. Sound familiar?
Quote:
Joe..
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/29/2008 9:37 am : link
nobody is saying the team hasn't made adjustments. There just isn't this whole new radical approach that has been implemented.
And here's Joe talking specifically about plays changing:
Quote:
The offense and routes
Mike fr Warwick : 1/29/2008 9:38 am : link
have not been simplified. Actually they have added to it both in the passing and running game. The running game now has a cutback feature that was missing earlier in the year. The passing game has more 3 step and less play action. The routes run are still based on pre snap reads. Now using the pump fake more to freeze defenders rather than the threat of the run. You see more even number routes in the pattern trees. You see the bunch being employed a little more often. Last week you saw a heavy dose of the back shoulder fade.
Mike
JerseyJoe : 1/29/2008 9:39 am : link
yes this is a very good part of it. But it is also considered simplification when what you have mentioned has replaced plays that require much more complicated and long developing reads and excessive passing trees.
Joe - it is your turn to show where I've said there is no simplification or that nothing has changed. Ball is in your court and I suspect it will remain there.
to say that pre-snap checks were eliminated. Hell, I've even agree taht things have been simplified, but you are such a stubborn fuck that you won't attribute that to me. I said it in 2008 and I've said it yesterday and today.
I've also said that simplification isn't the only reason or even the main reason for success because the plays and the schemes haven't changed.
You either are intentionally missing this point or simply don't have an answer so you ignore it.
Either way, I've answered you continuously throughout these threads and the best you can do is repaste shit and act like I haven't.
Meanwhile, I'm certain you won't be able to answer my request to produce evidence where I've said nothing has changed.
While this exchange should end the charade, I'm also really confident that it won't. You'll probably still press me about simplification again because you are either too fucking stupid or simply willingfully ignorant to listen.
It is obvious that the defense was too complex and something needed to be done about it. The Giants back in the last 6 games of '11 and the second half of the bears game DID SIMPLIFY to an extent that multiple players were quoted as being clearly happy with. The results defensively during the 6 game stretch as well as the last 10 quarters have been astoundingly better.
CAN YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
My main disagreement from the start was that you seem to think the biggest reason for the results the last 2 games were the adjustments. As if a switch flipped suddenly.
The adjustments helped I'm sure.. but to me, it was more the arrival of Beason, Hill playing well, the QB's we played and the offense not putting us in a hole. That's all.
that Beason has made on the defense, however they have also gone out of there way to speak on the meeting and the simplifying of the scheme which has improved the communication of the unit as a whole.
Both of these factors and Hill are the big reason behind this sudden improvement.
The thing that is upsetting though is that , THE SAME THING DID OCCUR IN 2011 and the were no new addition during that run.
So really the common event is the simplification of the scheme and the comments from players and coaches which backed up both.
Geeman.. we also had basically every single starter healthy for the 2011-12 run. I think that made a huge difference. We really weren't missing anyone.
And it's a great narrative and all.. but if that's true, I still don't understand what happened last year. We won the Super Bowl off 6 straight wins and then started 2012 with the complex version of the defense again, got bad results and never attempted to make a change because of... stubbornness?
your backtracking...You have fought the simplification argument for years...not just the TYPE of simplification but that we have simplified. often saying it was NOT simplification but normal adjustments that any team would make throughout the season.
still haven't seen you admit you were WRONG! Dancing around it as usual.
Let me take the first step, I have been wrong in terms of the TYPES of simplification needed. Ive tried to take an educated stab many times at what EXACTLY was the complexity of the defense (and offense) that needed to be fixed. Ive also used wrong terminology in describing what those fixes were or needed to be.
I am certainly not an expert in X's and O's but I (and quite a few others here) could still see there was a huge issue by all the clues from the numerous miscues throughout the years to the player/coaches quotes and then sudden collective rise in performance after players were clearly quoted about the coaching staff making simplifications the week before.
So in summation:
I have from the beginning (since the early days of TC's tenure) stood by that the main issue was over-complexity (whether on O or D) and that this organization seems to have an affinity for over-complicating things. Where I was wrong is trying to pinpoint exactly where that complexity was and/or how it was being addressed. I also NEVER said it is the sole reason but that it was one of the biggest factors in terms of what is holding us back from playing to our talent level (this is something you have tried to minimize also, can you ADMIT that this is a much bigger factor than you have often given it credit for?).
I also was dead wrong about Fewell's hiring. I was so excited about his hiring based on the quotes about him being a players coach and that he was very good at adjusting his defense taking advantage of his personel's strengths. Little did I know that he would put so much 'read and react' stuff in this D that the players couldn't ball anymore and were playing passive and confused.
I would like you to step up now ,stop skirting the issue and admit (even if very reluctantly) all the things you have been wrong about!
I've done that numerous times. Not surprisingly you've been too busy repasting shit to notice.
Even in 2008, I said that things were adjusted and simplified. Have no idea why you think I haven't said that other than the fact I think you are a really stupid motherfucker and don't waste an opportunity to tell you that, which apparently makes you ignore the points.
Points made in fucking 2008.
It sure takes you awhile to catch on. Frankly, I'm assuming you never will.
Newsflash...ALL Defenses are read and react! If you've ever played, you know that.
Defenses are trained to read formations and "keys" (tendencies by players) to figure out how to defend the play that's coming. If you just blindly go after the QB, you leave yourself open to draws, quick screens, for example. If you go all out and leave your DB's on an island, offenses will see that and take advantage.
There is a difference between attacking defenses, and defenses that "bend and don't break". And yes, I prefer attacking defenses...as long as they can get to the QB in time. If they can't, then it's better to play back a bit, and make the offense work it's way down the field, as the odds are pretty good that someone on offense will screw up. Proper mixing between the two (as well as being able to disguise what you're doing) helps a lot. But they all read and react. Hell, you can't go first, the offense snaps the ball..so you "react" on defense!
As far as simplification goes, things are simpler when you have players who can do their roles. If you're asking other players to "cover", that makes things complicated. For example, having Beason play a proper MLB makes it a lot easier on the D-Line and the Defensive Backfield...they don't have to worry as much about covering for that hole in the middle.
Likewise on offense, if you shorten your routes, and have someone like Hillis who can catch the ball out of the backfield, it makes it easier for the O-Line. I'd actually would like our offense to "look" more complicated (more formations, misdirection plays, counters, etc), but that all depends on the Line getting better at blocking. If we can't block, nothing works.
CAN YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
JerseyJoe : 1/30/2008 11:30 am : link
multiple passing trees = multiple options routes for each recieving option on a given play. The number and complexity of the OVERALL reads/options far outnumber other playbooks and has been a main factor of miscommunications ,bad reads ints ,bad body language from Eli/WRs etc..
THIS facet has been pared down. I.E. instead of 10-15 overall options /reads/ adjustments the quarterback and recievers have to collectively make, it is now 5-10 and sometimes less on most of the plays.
Does it mean the playbook has changed? not necessarily. they could just be calling the less thought-intensive/'heavy read and react' type plays and focusing on calling plays that are simpler but still take full advantage of the D formation.
This is a shift to a playcalling based O (where the onus is more on the playcalling) vs. a QB based O (where the onus is more on the Qb to always make the right read)
get it now 'coach' or still too difficult to grasp?
This was 2008. Also from 2008 is my same argument - the one where I've said that things have changed. Sound familiar?
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/29/2008 9:37 am : link
nobody is saying the team hasn't made adjustments. There just isn't this whole new radical approach that has been implemented.
And here's Joe talking specifically about plays changing:
Mike fr Warwick : 1/29/2008 9:38 am : link
have not been simplified. Actually they have added to it both in the passing and running game. The running game now has a cutback feature that was missing earlier in the year. The passing game has more 3 step and less play action. The routes run are still based on pre snap reads. Now using the pump fake more to freeze defenders rather than the threat of the run. You see more even number routes in the pattern trees. You see the bunch being employed a little more often. Last week you saw a heavy dose of the back shoulder fade.
Mike
JerseyJoe : 1/29/2008 9:39 am : link
yes this is a very good part of it. But it is also considered simplification when what you have mentioned has replaced plays that require much more complicated and long developing reads and excessive passing trees.
Joe - it is your turn to show where I've said there is no simplification or that nothing has changed. Ball is in your court and I suspect it will remain there.
I've also said that simplification isn't the only reason or even the main reason for success because the plays and the schemes haven't changed.
You either are intentionally missing this point or simply don't have an answer so you ignore it.
Either way, I've answered you continuously throughout these threads and the best you can do is repaste shit and act like I haven't.
Meanwhile, I'm certain you won't be able to answer my request to produce evidence where I've said nothing has changed.
While this exchange should end the charade, I'm also really confident that it won't. You'll probably still press me about simplification again because you are either too fucking stupid or simply willingfully ignorant to listen.
CAN YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
My main disagreement from the start was that you seem to think the biggest reason for the results the last 2 games were the adjustments. As if a switch flipped suddenly.
The adjustments helped I'm sure.. but to me, it was more the arrival of Beason, Hill playing well, the QB's we played and the offense not putting us in a hole. That's all.
Link - ( New Window )
Both of these factors and Hill are the big reason behind this sudden improvement.
The thing that is upsetting though is that , THE SAME THING DID OCCUR IN 2011 and the were no new addition during that run.
So really the common event is the simplification of the scheme and the comments from players and coaches which backed up both.
Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
And it's a great narrative and all.. but if that's true, I still don't understand what happened last year. We won the Super Bowl off 6 straight wins and then started 2012 with the complex version of the defense again, got bad results and never attempted to make a change because of... stubbornness?
You are going to ignore my words back in 2008.
You are going to remain a fucking putz.
Great job.
Let me take the first step, I have been wrong in terms of the TYPES of simplification needed. Ive tried to take an educated stab many times at what EXACTLY was the complexity of the defense (and offense) that needed to be fixed. Ive also used wrong terminology in describing what those fixes were or needed to be.
I am certainly not an expert in X's and O's but I (and quite a few others here) could still see there was a huge issue by all the clues from the numerous miscues throughout the years to the player/coaches quotes and then sudden collective rise in performance after players were clearly quoted about the coaching staff making simplifications the week before.
So in summation:
I have from the beginning (since the early days of TC's tenure) stood by that the main issue was over-complexity (whether on O or D) and that this organization seems to have an affinity for over-complicating things. Where I was wrong is trying to pinpoint exactly where that complexity was and/or how it was being addressed. I also NEVER said it is the sole reason but that it was one of the biggest factors in terms of what is holding us back from playing to our talent level (this is something you have tried to minimize also, can you ADMIT that this is a much bigger factor than you have often given it credit for?).
I also was dead wrong about Fewell's hiring. I was so excited about his hiring based on the quotes about him being a players coach and that he was very good at adjusting his defense taking advantage of his personel's strengths. Little did I know that he would put so much 'read and react' stuff in this D that the players couldn't ball anymore and were playing passive and confused.
I would like you to step up now ,stop skirting the issue and admit (even if very reluctantly) all the things you have been wrong about!
Even in 2008, I said that things were adjusted and simplified. Have no idea why you think I haven't said that other than the fact I think you are a really stupid motherfucker and don't waste an opportunity to tell you that, which apparently makes you ignore the points.
Points made in fucking 2008.
It sure takes you awhile to catch on. Frankly, I'm assuming you never will.
Oh, and "excessive passing trees" never gets old to me. Fucking GOLD.
Defenses are trained to read formations and "keys" (tendencies by players) to figure out how to defend the play that's coming. If you just blindly go after the QB, you leave yourself open to draws, quick screens, for example. If you go all out and leave your DB's on an island, offenses will see that and take advantage.
There is a difference between attacking defenses, and defenses that "bend and don't break". And yes, I prefer attacking defenses...as long as they can get to the QB in time. If they can't, then it's better to play back a bit, and make the offense work it's way down the field, as the odds are pretty good that someone on offense will screw up. Proper mixing between the two (as well as being able to disguise what you're doing) helps a lot. But they all read and react. Hell, you can't go first, the offense snaps the ball..so you "react" on defense!
As far as simplification goes, things are simpler when you have players who can do their roles. If you're asking other players to "cover", that makes things complicated. For example, having Beason play a proper MLB makes it a lot easier on the D-Line and the Defensive Backfield...they don't have to worry as much about covering for that hole in the middle.
Likewise on offense, if you shorten your routes, and have someone like Hillis who can catch the ball out of the backfield, it makes it easier for the O-Line. I'd actually would like our offense to "look" more complicated (more formations, misdirection plays, counters, etc), but that all depends on the Line getting better at blocking. If we can't block, nothing works.
Gilbride must have loaned his chainsaw to Fewell.