Nothing too groundbreaking here. I thought it was very well presented though. Talks about the OL, WR's, and RB's...and how different Shurmur's offense will look from McAdoo's.
I had forgotten about the time when Hargreaves told Beckham that the Bucs new what they were going to do.
After talking about McAdoo's playcalling, he also showed a graphic displaying how often the Giants offense was in a 3WR, 1RB, 1TE set compared to others (918 times compared to 84 times). I knew they were in that formation the majority of the time but when you look at it like that, it sort of puts it in a whole new light for me.
Also shows some of his favorite plays from Shurmur's offense in Minnesota.
I agree with everything he says here. Its kind of long (a little over 20 minutes) but if you're bored and are starving for some football its well worth checking out.
Link - (
New Window )
And how did they allow the Giants to go 8/17 on third down conversions, which led to them maintaining possession for 34:13?
The remarks by Hargreaves were just a player flattering himself after the game. They do it all the time.
Every offense runs the same plays, over and over. That's why they're called tendencies.
There's no magic to this stuff. If the Giants offense improves next season it won't be because of any differences in personnel groupings, formations, shifting or motion packages, plays or play calling. It will be because the players played better.
Block better. Run better. Throw it better. Catch it better. That's how an offense improves.
And how did they allow the Giants to go 8/17 on third down conversions, which led to them maintaining possession for 34:13?
The remarks by Hargreaves were just a player flattering himself after the game. They do it all the time.
Every offense runs the same plays, over and over. That's why they're called tendencies.
There's no magic to this stuff. If the Giants offense improves next season it won't be because of any differences in personnel groupings, formations, shifting or motion packages, plays or play calling. It will be because the players played better.
Block better. Run better. Throw it better. Catch it better. That's how an offense improves.
True, but execution trumps pretty much anything. EVERYONE knew what Lombardi was going to run, but the execution was so superb, they couldn’t stop it all that well, if at all..The Giants were very predictable imo, but there were some games where what the D knew (as to what was coming) didn’t matter all that much
Good post
Moreso that you are a meatball probably posting wearing a wife beater, gold crucifix and having exceptionally hairy shoulders.
But close to par for your course...
And how did they allow the Giants to go 8/17 on third down conversions, which led to them maintaining possession for 34:13?
The remarks by Hargreaves were just a player flattering himself after the game. They do it all the time.
Every offense runs the same plays, over and over. That's why they're called tendencies.
There's no magic to this stuff. If the Giants offense improves next season it won't be because of any differences in personnel groupings, formations, shifting or motion packages, plays or play calling. It will be because the players played better.
Block better. Run better. Throw it better. Catch it better. That's how an offense improves.
Keep telling yourself that system, play design and to a lesser extent play calling doesn’t make a difference. It’s just a laughable take.
Play calling might be a bit overstated but offensive philosophy, play design and overall leadership is the end all be all in today’s Nfl. It’s everything.
Just because parcells and the 80s giants all but telegraphed 80% of every offensive play doesn’t mean what you think it means. What about the overall philosophy? Putting players in the right place at the right time? What about the fake punt once a month? Or the well timed flea flicker? Or the 10 consecutive passes in the 3rd quarter of a big December game that to a big win?
Mcadoo was in over his head.
When the competitive balance is razor thin, and game-to-game you deal with injuries, suspensions, basically no hitting in practice, and a constantly changing roster with a free agency and cap, play calling is a bigger factor.
If football was war the giants lost the war after one quarter of play and it can be directly attributed to a stubborn leader who thought he knew more than everyone else. Mcadoo was a failure of titanic proportions.
Block better. Run better. Throw it better. Catch it better. That's how an offense improves.
I've pointed it out several times, but the differences in TC's offense and Mac's were immense and it impacted the results drastically.
We went from having the most plays of 20+ passes to the fewest. We went to s personnel grouping 91% of the time. We didn't stretch the field nor try to exploit the edges. We basically ran an offense where almost 90% of the plays happened withing 10 yards of the LOS.
An offense can improve a number of ways. And it will be a lot easier to block better, run better, pass better and catch better if the defense has to guess at what's coming or has to react to different personnel once in awhile.
How can anyone have watched the last two seasons and think that the system was fine and we just need better players and execution?
Or just keep trying the exact, unproductive approach with the same group. I guess that's one way to approach play calling.
you know, played better...