I don't mean this as a pile on Ben McAdoo post. I thought he did a very good job last year & think he is the right man for the job going forward.
With that said, most here were very hard on Gilbride, a man who led 2 Giant Super Bowl champion offenses. A lot of us, myself included, got so wrapped up in Eli's numbers and whether he could put up big numbers in a more QB friendly system. The bottom line, Gilbride's system worked just fine **when things were going well.** Eli's numbers have been better, but most of that can be attributed to Odell Beckham and his tremendous YAC results. Eli is Eli whether Gilbride is running the show or McAdoo. He throws a lot of picks and is not going to put up massive numbers, and that's okay.
Gilbride's system was volatile & with a bad offensive line it does not work (see 18 TD - 27 INT in 2013). The idea that Gilbride was causing Eli bad numbers is so absurd, it is about winning titles & they did that twice. Eli had a fantastic completion rating this past week and it was arguably one of his worst regular season games.
Grass wasn't actually greener.
It seemed like the philosophy change was good for him but now we seem to be at another impasse where the offense looks "broken" again.
I think it was smart to adopt more short passing concepts, and it seemed to be paying dividends the first couple of years - but now the offense looks "broken" again, which is highly concerning. Most of it is the crappy offensive line play - but you also have to wonder how much Eli is contributing to it. It might not be crazy to say that he's part of the problem at this point (as much as it pains me to say)
That said, I think a lack of a run game, the inability to consistently block up front and some pretty questionable playcalling are all bigger culprits right now.
However, where I was positive Eli was not an issue at all before.. I don't know now. We're basically at the point where if he doesn't have a clean pocket, the play goes to complete shit. He looks like he has the yips - his internal clock still seems to be suffering.
The arm strength looks to still be there - but he's missing some throws that he really needs to make. The play where Marshall leaked out to the left and Eli missed him was a really big blown opportunity - that could have been a pretty big play. We can't leave those on the field.
2. We're in a so called simplified offense now and we're seeing similar results. The common denominator? Horrible offensive line play. Criticism of McAdoo's system is starting to sound awfully similar to Gilbride's final year.
Executed properly, it was unstoppable at times - and others, it couldn't get out of it's own fucking way. Despite the fact that we had more cap and draft picks allocated to the offense, it took two big time defensive performances to turn out those championship seasons.
Executed properly, it was unstoppable at times - and others, it couldn't get out of it's own fucking way. Despite the fact that we had more cap and draft picks allocated to the offense, it took two big time defensive performances to turn out those championship seasons.
The Giants had more % of cap space dedicated to the defense in both 2011 and 2007.
2012 was the year it swung the other way, thanks to several guys on the OL's cap hits kicking in.
Quote:
engine. When everything is working right, it's perfection. One small problem somewhere - and the engine could blow itself to bits.
Executed properly, it was unstoppable at times - and others, it couldn't get out of it's own fucking way. Despite the fact that we had more cap and draft picks allocated to the offense, it took two big time defensive performances to turn out those championship seasons.
The Giants had more % of cap space dedicated to the defense in both 2011 and 2007.
2012 was the year it swung the other way, thanks to several guys on the OL's cap hits kicking in.
2011, for example, was 43.02% offense, 55.06% defense... and remember the defense was only 27th ranked that regular season, even if they thankfully stepped up late.
I'm pretty sure the draft picks aren't as heavily sided towards the offense either, through those points, but I haven't checked that to 100% sure.
You subtract any of the 3 and good luck.
The Giants have invested draft picks in the offense and cap space in the defense. If Pugh, Rich, and Flowers were plus players, we'd be a contender. Because they are not, we are not.
It's simple economics, the investments have not paid off.
Quote:
In comment 13596564 jcn56 said:
Quote:
engine. When everything is working right, it's perfection. One small problem somewhere - and the engine could blow itself to bits.
Executed properly, it was unstoppable at times - and others, it couldn't get out of it's own fucking way. Despite the fact that we had more cap and draft picks allocated to the offense, it took two big time defensive performances to turn out those championship seasons.
The Giants had more % of cap space dedicated to the defense in both 2011 and 2007.
2012 was the year it swung the other way, thanks to several guys on the OL's cap hits kicking in.
2011, for example, was 43.02% offense, 55.06% defense... and remember the defense was only 27th ranked that regular season, even if they thankfully stepped up late.
I'm pretty sure the draft picks aren't as heavily sided towards the offense either, through those points, but I haven't checked that to 100% sure.
I don't think your numbers are accurate - what's your source? Spotrac only goes back to 13, but starting in 13 and going forward, it historically offensively biased. I seem to recall (and can't find a source for now) that the 07 team was particularly biased towards the offense.
Quote:
In comment 13596589 Devon said:
Quote:
In comment 13596564 jcn56 said:
Quote:
engine. When everything is working right, it's perfection. One small problem somewhere - and the engine could blow itself to bits.
Executed properly, it was unstoppable at times - and others, it couldn't get out of it's own fucking way. Despite the fact that we had more cap and draft picks allocated to the offense, it took two big time defensive performances to turn out those championship seasons.
The Giants had more % of cap space dedicated to the defense in both 2011 and 2007.
2012 was the year it swung the other way, thanks to several guys on the OL's cap hits kicking in.
2011, for example, was 43.02% offense, 55.06% defense... and remember the defense was only 27th ranked that regular season, even if they thankfully stepped up late.
I'm pretty sure the draft picks aren't as heavily sided towards the offense either, through those points, but I haven't checked that to 100% sure.
I don't think your numbers are accurate - what's your source? Spotrac only goes back to 13, but starting in 13 and going forward, it historically offensively biased. I seem to recall (and can't find a source for now) that the 07 team was particularly biased towards the offense.
And old FO almanac -- though I did read it wrong, as I was looking at payouts.
The share numbers were 45.08% to 52.41%, offense to defense. I remembered it being this way, before looking, because at the time when the defense was playing like trash, it was brought up. A lot. About how they weren't getting value for the money they were spending, but were getting great value out of the WR contracts.
Also, looking the drafts just now, you were definitely wrong on the draft pick distribution.
From 2004 through 2011, there were 23 picks spent on offense (that's including those traded to SD), 34 on defense, and two on specials.
Three firsts (again, including the SD picks) on offense, five on defense. Four seconds on offense, five on defense. Four thirds on offense, four on defense, one on specials.
Quote:
In comment 13596596 Devon said:
Quote:
In comment 13596589 Devon said:
Quote:
In comment 13596564 jcn56 said:
Quote:
engine. When everything is working right, it's perfection. One small problem somewhere - and the engine could blow itself to bits.
Executed properly, it was unstoppable at times - and others, it couldn't get out of it's own fucking way. Despite the fact that we had more cap and draft picks allocated to the offense, it took two big time defensive performances to turn out those championship seasons.
The Giants had more % of cap space dedicated to the defense in both 2011 and 2007.
2012 was the year it swung the other way, thanks to several guys on the OL's cap hits kicking in.
2011, for example, was 43.02% offense, 55.06% defense... and remember the defense was only 27th ranked that regular season, even if they thankfully stepped up late.
I'm pretty sure the draft picks aren't as heavily sided towards the offense either, through those points, but I haven't checked that to 100% sure.
I don't think your numbers are accurate - what's your source? Spotrac only goes back to 13, but starting in 13 and going forward, it historically offensively biased. I seem to recall (and can't find a source for now) that the 07 team was particularly biased towards the offense.
And old FO almanac -- though I did read it wrong, as I was looking at payouts.
The share numbers were 45.08% to 52.41%, offense to defense. I remembered it being this way, before looking, because at the time when the defense was playing like trash, it was brought up. A lot. About how they weren't getting value for the money they were spending, but were getting great value out of the WR contracts.
Also, looking the drafts just now, you were definitely wrong on the draft pick distribution.
From 2004 through 2011, there were 23 picks spent on offense (that's including those traded to SD), 34 on defense, and two on specials.
Three firsts (again, including the SD picks) on offense, five on defense. Four seconds on offense, five on defense. Four thirds on offense, four on defense, one on specials.
*edit out the one on specials for thirds, that was a fourth
At a time when the NFL has done everything to help the offense and teams score 3 td's in two minutes, Kid Slick's 'uncomplicated' offense cant't score 3 td's a game.
Gilbride was run out of town and isn't coming back so this debate is academic. All we can do is hope Kid Slick can come with a plan to crack that magical 20 point barrier
But when the O-line went to shit and we couldn't run the ball and didn't have much time to throw, Gilbride's scheme didn't work. His plays took too long to develop and we had too much of a carousel at WR to develop any chemistry or mastery of it. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to want to scrap his plan and develop a new scheme the way a mind like Belichick would.
Given the current state of the offensive line and run game, I wouldn't want Gilbride back because his offense wouldn't work for the same reason he was asked to leave.
But if we had an awesome offensive line? Gilbride and Eli could do some major damage.
Much better than the 3 yard out crap we have now.
McAdoo's two year stint as OC yielded 25.05 points/game.
Last year as HC the average was 19.4.
But comparing their capacities as OCs, Gillbride was not missed in 2014 and 2015. It was the defense that let us down.
I don't know why we attribute success or failure so heavily toward coaching. He's the same coach who once called 58 passing plays in a windstorm in a miserable losing effort.
Perkins looks like a joke. Give Darkwa the rock.
2007: 14th (Superbowl)
2008: 3rd
2009: 8th
2010: 7th
2011: 9th (Superbowl)
2012: 6th
2013: 28th (Fired)
But when the O-line went to shit and we couldn't run the ball and didn't have much time to throw, Gilbride's scheme didn't work. His plays took too long to develop and we had too much of a carousel at WR to develop any chemistry or mastery of it. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to want to scrap his plan and develop a new scheme the way a mind like Belichick would.
Given the current state of the offensive line and run game, I wouldn't want Gilbride back because his offense wouldn't work for the same reason he was asked to leave.
But if we had an awesome offensive line? Gilbride and Eli could do some major damage.
Agreed
You can blame Coughlin, you can blame Gilbride, you can blame Eli (he's going to be the next one run off with pitchforks)...
But that's what happened. And it's still happening.
2007: 14th (Superbowl)
2008: 3rd
2009: 8th
2010: 7th
2011: 9th (Superbowl)
2012: 6th
2013: 28th (Fired)
Wow. Did not realize this.
You can blame Coughlin, you can blame Gilbride, you can blame Eli (he's going to be the next one run off with pitchforks)...
But that's what happened. And it's still happening.
coughlin and gillbrides best cosching job was 2011, the oline was dog shit but had vets, the rushing attack was dog shit, the defense was mediocre, yet gillbride and coughlin kept the team going and together...
2012 and 2013 it fell apart
Quote:
2006: 11th
2007: 14th (Superbowl)
2008: 3rd
2009: 8th
2010: 7th
2011: 9th (Superbowl)
2012: 6th
2013: 28th (Fired)
Wow. Did not realize this.
I posted those numbers on every Gilbride bashing thread for years, but people still wanted him gone.
You want to know what I always defended them both so much? Because I knew the offense we were seeing was so special with Coughlin, Eli, and Gilbride.
They were Golden Years of NYG football, and like most things, nobody truly appreciates them until they're gone, and people realize the grass isn't always greener.
Quote:
In comment 13596780 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
2006: 11th
2007: 14th (Superbowl)
2008: 3rd
2009: 8th
2010: 7th
2011: 9th (Superbowl)
2012: 6th
2013: 28th (Fired)
Wow. Did not realize this.
I posted those numbers on every Gilbride bashing thread for years, but people still wanted him gone.
Wait, so a OF who had a good offensive line put up good numbers when he had an OL, and bad numbers when he didn't. That is all those numbers show. Gilbride was fine, but neither he nor coughlin had an answer when the OL stumbled. At least, McAdoo had some answers, the league seems to have figured it out, and we may have to change again, but Gillbride's offense needed an OL, which we didn't have. It was the right choice to find someone who could work with our personnel.
Quote:
In comment 13596850 Sean said:
Quote:
In comment 13596780 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
2006: 11th
2007: 14th (Superbowl)
2008: 3rd
2009: 8th
2010: 7th
2011: 9th (Superbowl)
2012: 6th
2013: 28th (Fired)
Wow. Did not realize this.
I posted those numbers on every Gilbride bashing thread for years, but people still wanted him gone.
Wait, so a OF who had a good offensive line put up good numbers when he had an OL, and bad numbers when he didn't. That is all those numbers show. Gilbride was fine, but neither he nor coughlin had an answer when the OL stumbled. At least, McAdoo had some answers, the league seems to have figured it out, and we may have to change again, but Gillbride's offense needed an OL, which we didn't have. It was the right choice to find someone who could work with our personnel.
The O-line started to decline in 2009. By 2011 it sucked. I think we were what? 31st or 32nd in the league in rushing? They did alright that year if I recall correctly.
You can say the same thing about Spags & the D. Success requires good coaching and talent. Can you evaluate coaching in the absence of good talent?
2007: 10 games over 20 points, 6 over 30
2008: 11 games over 20 points, 5 over 30, 2 over 40
2009: 11 games over 20 points, 4 over 30, 2 over 40
2010: 10 games over 20 points, 4 over 30, 2 over 40
2011: 13 games over 20 points, 5 over 30
2012: 10 games over 20 points, 2 over 30, 3 over 40, 1 over 50
2013: 10 games over 20 points, 1 over 30 (Fired)
McAdoo's offense has never broken 30 points, and we all know about the magic number of 20 points.
I just posted scores and NFL rank.
last year they scored 27 and 28...
As mentioned above, in 2015 we scored over 30 several times, with the same, maybe worse, players.
What happened?
ehh he won a superbowl with a garbage oline and no running game
On the NFL Network the both of them were talking about Gilbride System. The both said they couldn't play in that system and be successful. There were far too many reads (Min 4 with a max 6) for the QB and Receiver's to make after the Huddle at the LOS. It was based on not only the safety/s but the LB's and how they lined up. Each and every subtle difference in the defensive lineup meant the receiver had a different cut or move or route to run. To get 3 receivers and a QB to see the field the exact same way is really too much to ask with all the different routes and cuts. That is why it sometimes looked like Eli was throwing to air, the receiver saw thing Eli saw another and the receiver cut left when Eli threw right.
That was just one example of a million different secenarios for play. I tried to make it simple)but when all pieces were on the same page that Offense could not be stopped. It was truly a high risk high reward system. We cant complain that system won this team 2 Super Bowls. It failed because Reese drafted too many receivers that could not grasp the nuances of the system in other words they were too stupid to understand it
On the NFL Network the both of them were talking about Gilbride System. The both said they couldn't play in that system and be successful. There were far too many reads (Min 4 with a max 6) for the QB and Receiver's to make after the Huddle at the LOS. It was based on not only the safety/s but the LB's and how they lined up. Each and every subtle difference in the defensive lineup meant the receiver had a different cut or move or route to run. To get 3 receivers and a QB to see the field the exact same way is really too much to ask with all the different routes and cuts. That is why it sometimes looked like Eli was throwing to air, the receiver saw thing Eli saw another and the receiver cut left when Eli threw right.
That was just one example of a million different secenarios for play. I tried to make it simple)but when all pieces were on the same page that Offense could not be stopped. It was truly a high risk high reward system. We cant complain that system won this team 2 Super Bowls. It failed because Reese drafted too many receivers that could not grasp the nuances of the system in other words they were too stupid to understand it
Yet it was plug and play for a multitude of seasons and supposed "non-replaceable" receivers came and went successfully.
Mario Manningham had great years in the offense, not to mention being a Superbowl here (along with another journeyman David Tyree).
I was always surprised KG didn't get another coaching job after 'retirement'.
I was always surprised KG didn't get another coaching job after 'retirement'.
I fully believe the reports that KG had enough of coaching when he was done. He's got a good gig as an analyst now, and he spent a long time on the sidelines with a number of teams, got himself a ring. Not sure that even if he was offered another spot whether he'd have taken it.
I agree with the overall sentiment though - it's possible for someone to have done a good job but for it to have run it's course, and that was certainly the case for Gilbride here.