So all of the beats loved trotting out how much McAdoo ran 11 personnel and how it was the reason our offense was dreck. Too much reliance on one formation they said. Too predictable they said. McAdoo is dumb, they said (well that was correct).
So far in 2018 the 2nd highest scoring team in the NFL is the LA Rams at 33 points per game. According to yesterday's game, they are in 11 personnel 97% of the time. Yes NINETY SEVEN PERCENT. They were at 80% last year and averaged 29.875 points per game. So the Rams, one of the most consistently high scoring teams of the past season and a half live in the 11 formation. McAdoo's reliance on it is NOT NOT NOT the reason we stunk.
This is a team game, where players, plays and schemes need to fit and dumbly pointing out that you know what 11 personnel is to sound cool in the beat writers room and when you tweet makes you look stupid. They banged on that fact ad nauseum as it's the one revelation that they uncovered that would fix this team. Guess what? It ain't the formation stupid so put that old tired argument to bed.
80% in 2017 - (
New Window )
The Rams can block it up front, have a great scheme, and a coach who - so far - has in incredible knack for play calling. So 11-personnel actually does work for them.
The Giants didn't have any of that in 2017..............
IMO, Eli should be under center way more and utilizing play action. How much play action have we used this year? Despite SB not having great success in consistent yardage gains, he is always a threat and defenses have to respect that.
Anyone see Carolina on third and goal yesterday? Newton under center, faked to play action, and hit a TE who was wide open.
Guarantee the Giants would have been - and other teams too - in shotgun.
On NBC, Tony Dungy even wondered aloud "why aren't more teams doing this"...........I wonder the same thing.
The Rams can block it up front, have a great scheme, and a coach who - so far - has in incredible knack for play calling. So 11-personnel actually does work for them.
The Giants didn't have any of that in 2017..............
The point is that inherently, you don't have to struggle offensively because you have the same personnel on the field most of the time.
I think some other folks pointed that out back then as well, although not with an example as solid as the Rams.
I don’t think Barkley does much either. Could be wrong.
Quote:
....what does the LA Rams have to do with the 2017 Giants?
The Rams can block it up front, have a great scheme, and a coach who - so far - has in incredible knack for play calling. So 11-personnel actually does work for them.
The Giants didn't have any of that in 2017..............
The point is that inherently, you don't have to struggle offensively because you have the same personnel on the field most of the time.
I think some other folks pointed that out back then as well, although not with an example as solid as the Rams.
Of course you don't.
Under Parcells the Giants had like three running plays. Other teams knew everything they were doing...but they did it exceptionally well.
The 2017 Giants didn't....and it's the HC's job to adjust, which quite frankly he didn't.
Why do we like to point at ONE thing and think it is the only possible reason for soemthing going wrong?
Running 11 personnel for McAdoo was a huge problem. Was it the only problem? Of course not.
If I am a boxer and my jab sucks but that is all I throw then I'm going to get knocked the fuck out because I suck and I am predictable. If my jab is legit and I can throw it with authority and accuracy from multiple angles then it is a huge weapon for me.
Bringing up one team doing well from 11 personnel does not support anything. Does every team that runs 11 personnel have McVay as a coach? Do they have Gurley at RB? Do they have a solid blocking TE? Do they have othef really good weapons?
Come on. This is beyond stupid.
Why do we like to point at ONE thing and think it is the only possible reason for soemthing going wrong?
Running 11 personnel for McAdoo was a huge problem. Was it the only problem? Of course not.
If I am a boxer and my jab sucks but that is all I throw then I'm going to get knocked the fuck out because I suck and I am predictable. If my jab is legit and I can throw it with authority and accuracy from multiple angles then it is a huge weapon for me.
Bringing up one team doing well from 11 personnel does not support anything. Does every team that runs 11 personnel have McVay as a coach? Do they have Gurley at RB? Do they have a solid blocking TE? Do they have othef really good weapons?
Come on. This is beyond stupid.
Exactly.
11 was NOT working for the 2017 Giants...so you start to mix your formations. Do things different, create different looks, etc.. Allow TEs to stay in and block. Max protect.
So McAdoo's solution was to stay in 11 until the Giants drafted/signed better players?
That's coaching?
But was that really the issue?
The issue was, to me, we were in 11 personnel 97% of the time and we looked overmatched.............
To me, it was a head coach being hard headed and it ultimately cost him his job.
The Giants didn't break 30 points scored in almost 2 years running 11 personnel the majority of the time. In fact they averaged under 20 points per game running 11 personnel over 95% of the time in 2016.
One team has a reason to stick with or even increase their usage of that personnel group the other team should rethink it.
Like others not suggesting the typical personnel grouping the Giants used was the sole reason for their lack of offensive success, but it probably wasn't helping.
Why do we like to point at ONE thing and think it is the only possible reason for soemthing going wrong?
Running 11 personnel for McAdoo was a huge problem. Was it the only problem? Of course not.
If I am a boxer and my jab sucks but that is all I throw then I'm going to get knocked the fuck out because I suck and I am predictable. If my jab is legit and I can throw it with authority and accuracy from multiple angles then it is a huge weapon for me.
Bringing up one team doing well from 11 personnel does not support anything. Does every team that runs 11 personnel have McVay as a coach? Do they have Gurley at RB? Do they have a solid blocking TE? Do they have othef really good weapons?
Come on. This is beyond stupid.
McAdoo’s Giants don’t come anywhere close to stacking up from a scheme or talent perspective.
Quote:
The Rams do plenty of things to keep a defense off balance AND they have the talent.
Why do we like to point at ONE thing and think it is the only possible reason for soemthing going wrong?
Running 11 personnel for McAdoo was a huge problem. Was it the only problem? Of course not.
If I am a boxer and my jab sucks but that is all I throw then I'm going to get knocked the fuck out because I suck and I am predictable. If my jab is legit and I can throw it with authority and accuracy from multiple angles then it is a huge weapon for me.
Bringing up one team doing well from 11 personnel does not support anything. Does every team that runs 11 personnel have McVay as a coach? Do they have Gurley at RB? Do they have a solid blocking TE? Do they have othef really good weapons?
Come on. This is beyond stupid.
Exactly.
11 was NOT working for the 2017 Giants...so you start to mix your formations. Do things different, create different looks, etc.. Allow TEs to stay in and block. Max protect.
So McAdoo's solution was to stay in 11 until the Giants drafted/signed better players?
That's coaching?
But was that really the issue?
The issue was, to me, we were in 11 personnel 97% of the time and we looked overmatched.............
To me, it was a head coach being hard headed and it ultimately cost him his job.
Formations can change with the same personnel grouping. The bottom line is most of the time, you want your best players on the field. If that means a lot of 11 personnel, so be it.
PFF did an article on it over the summer, and during McAdoo's flameout there were several good posts about how often other teams were running with 11 personnel.
IMO - the problems have been execution, injuries and playcalling in that order. Execution is tied to talent, and we've had a fair combo of both good talent that's not performing and we've trotted out our share of bums.
Quote:
In comment 14139378 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
The Rams do plenty of things to keep a defense off balance AND they have the talent.
Why do we like to point at ONE thing and think it is the only possible reason for soemthing going wrong?
Running 11 personnel for McAdoo was a huge problem. Was it the only problem? Of course not.
If I am a boxer and my jab sucks but that is all I throw then I'm going to get knocked the fuck out because I suck and I am predictable. If my jab is legit and I can throw it with authority and accuracy from multiple angles then it is a huge weapon for me.
Bringing up one team doing well from 11 personnel does not support anything. Does every team that runs 11 personnel have McVay as a coach? Do they have Gurley at RB? Do they have a solid blocking TE? Do they have othef really good weapons?
Come on. This is beyond stupid.
Exactly.
11 was NOT working for the 2017 Giants...so you start to mix your formations. Do things different, create different looks, etc.. Allow TEs to stay in and block. Max protect.
So McAdoo's solution was to stay in 11 until the Giants drafted/signed better players?
That's coaching?
It wasn't working because our OL was trash and our QB wasn't playing well. It had zero impact if we "change it up". Change to what, what you DON'T do well? Football is a game of execution and recognition, not trickery.
Actually deception is a huge part of the NFL.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-the-rise-of-11-personnel-in-the-nfl - ( New Window )
That's what I thought this thread was about.
Put it this way on the 11 personnel grouping - McAdoo used it over 90% of the time which is a statistical high usage of any formation since that data has been tracked.
And he didn't deviate from the personnel grouping despite the lack of success.
But, I don't even have a problem with the personnel package as much as the formations used combined with the playcalling. Our offense was predictable to the point that there were plays the last couple of years you could hear the defense calling the play out.
winner.
Everyone drive block and let Barkley find a hole.
Everyone drive block and let Barkley find a hole.
I am under no illusion as to why we failed but the simplistic and flawed answer that we used one personnel grouping too often is quite simply utter crap.
I am under no illusion as to why we failed but the simplistic and flawed answer that we used one personnel grouping too often is quite simply utter crap.
But playcalling was the main problem. BM clearly was not comfortable with his entire playbook. Even when the WRs went down he stuck with the same plays and just put the TEs out wide as WRs so technically it wasnt 11 personel anymore but it was the same damn plays just with TEs as WRs. it was ridiculous.
Whereas it doesn't dictate formation , just refers to -whom- is out there, it seems like in-line, right side is typically the TE spot when having that group.
More to the point, 'do we' typically run the same -formation- stats pls, when having that grouping.
You have to try to create enough or a threat from the wideouts to move D away from center. Far away.
Additionally,running more, barks and EE would be ++ run blockers when blocking cornerbacks.
IMO, Eli should be under center way more and utilizing play action. How much play action have we used this year? Despite SB not having great success in consistent yardage gains, he is always a threat and defenses have to respect that.
Anyone see Carolina on third and goal yesterday? Newton under center, faked to play action, and hit a TE who was wide open.
Guarantee the Giants would have been - and other teams too - in shotgun.
On NBC, Tony Dungy even wondered aloud "why aren't more teams doing this"...........I wonder the same thing.
Formations and personnel groupings are not the same thing and shouldn't be used interchangeably.
Gurley at RB Vs the shit the Giants has the last two years. Byba postet who should know better. The stupid on this site gets worse every day
Gurley at RB Vs the shit the Giants has the last two years. Byba postet who should know better. The stupid on this site gets worse every day
But, I don't even have a problem with the personnel package as much as the formations used combined with the playcalling. Our offense was predictable to the point that there were plays the last couple of years you could hear the defense calling the play out.
Quote:
..so far under Shurmer, IMO, we are still not running enough of correct formations.
IMO, Eli should be under center way more and utilizing play action. How much play action have we used this year? Despite SB not having great success in consistent yardage gains, he is always a threat and defenses have to respect that.
Anyone see Carolina on third and goal yesterday? Newton under center, faked to play action, and hit a TE who was wide open.
Guarantee the Giants would have been - and other teams too - in shotgun.
On NBC, Tony Dungy even wondered aloud "why aren't more teams doing this"...........I wonder the same thing.
Formations and personnel groupings are not the same thing and shouldn't be used interchangeably.
This.
Quote:
The difference is the Rams have a better OL and running game than we had. We simply could not afford to be in 11 so often.
But, I don't even have a problem with the personnel package as much as the formations used combined with the playcalling. Our offense was predictable to the point that there were plays the last couple of years you could hear the defense calling the play out.
JFC Matt, I know that. Why don't you tell me that water is wet next?
Because the instence Of shoe horning 11 formation with the personal he had was a problem. Come on Joey. Also Would you honestly compare McVays offense and play calling to McAdoo?
It was an issue. Period. Why not run the option w Eli too while you’re at it and then use a team who runs some read option and it works and say Its not an issue.
Quote:
In comment 14139543 Matt M. said:
Quote:
The difference is the Rams have a better OL and running game than we had. We simply could not afford to be in 11 so often.
But, I don't even have a problem with the personnel package as much as the formations used combined with the playcalling. Our offense was predictable to the point that there were plays the last couple of years you could hear the defense calling the play out.
JFC Matt, I know that. Why don't you tell me that water is wet next?
Because the instence Of shoe horning 11 formation with the personal he had was a problem. Come on Joey. Also Would you honestly compare McVays offense and play calling to McAdoo?
It was an issue. Period. Why not run the option w Eli too while you’re at it and then use a team who runs some read option and it works and say Its not an issue.
You still think 11 is a formation, huh? But by all means, keep calling other people stupid.
Whereas it doesn't dictate formation , just refers to -whom- is out there, it seems like in-line, right side is typically the TE spot when having that group.
More to the point, 'do we' typically run the same -formation- stats pls, when having that grouping.
The number refers to the number of RBs and TEs in a given play, in that order. The number of WRs is then inferred from that.
"11" means 1 RB, 1 TE, and thus 3 WRs
"12" means 1 RB, 2TE, and thus 2 WRs
"21" means 2 RBs, 1 TE, and thus 2 WRs
Here are my questions for you:
1) You think Gettlemen can turn this around in the next couple of years?
2) What were your initial thoughts on the Shurmur hire? And has your opinion on him changed based on this season so far?