Talk about attention to detail and looking at film study.
On the Saints fake punt vs. the Eagles in the playoffs, they ran the play specifically because Fletcher Cox was on the field. Cox is a beast as a DT, but the Saints saw that when he was in the game as the Eagles kept their base defense on the field in punt returns, Cox would tend to just stand up and not give any effort.
So they ran the fake at Cox because they knew what type of effort he gave when he was on the field in those situations.
And fun fact on the Gary Reasons' fake punt in the 1990 NFC Title game, the Niners only had 10 men on the field, hence the huge hole he had to run through.
https://deadspin.com/the-saints-game-changing-fake-punt-depended-on-fletcher-1831843856 - (
New Window )
What's worse is that they were in defense stay. Essentially their only job was to prevent exactly what the Saints did. A punt block isn't what they are going for, they are there to keep the defense from trying a fake. And because Cox essentially took the play off, the Saints waited for him to be in and the situation to arise and run it at him. That's on Cox and also on the Eagle coaches for not seeing this.
Carl Banks often says that what has hurt the Giants in the past few years, beyond talent, was attention to detail and effort. This is a case in point.
Also, Warren Sharp's Twitter is an invaluable resource.
1st quarter, trailing....nearly same spot on the field.
Seemed Eagles did their homework but not everyone was on board.
Also, Warren Sharp's Twitter is an invaluable resource.
Reid's attention to detail evaporates in the 4th quarter of close games. And I'm a big Andy Reid fan.
I know it doesn't seem like it, but what the Giants do is also football.
Quote:
Post less about Shurmur and Beckham and more about football!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know it doesn't seem like it, but what the Giants do is also football.
You sure about that? lol.
I'm obviously kidding.
I don't remember what documentary I saw it on, it might have been the Two Bills documentary and I also heard it referenced by Tony Romo as well. At one point in a game, Parcells told Belichick to shift up the way the defense was playing because they started to get into a predictable pattern. They were playing well, but he didn't want to give away tendencies both in the game and on tape.
Romo mentioned that when he was doing film study on the Patriots when Dallas played them, Belichick would change up the defense seemingly at random just to screw with the teams doing film study and trying to find patterns/tendencies.
And there was this story last year how Belichick used the pre-season to notice tendencies in the Texans' safeties and burned them in the regular season on a long TD to Cooks.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/two-plays-show-how-bill-belichick-is-playing-chess-while-the-texans-play-checkers/ - ( New Window )
The way Parcells set it up and explained it was like he was talking about a virtuoso.
I watched those Brady videos last year and it was pretty clear that he's wound similarly. At one point Brady says, "I can watch film forever."
Therein lies the reason for New England's dominance - two football savants crossing paths at the same time. One off the field and one on the field...
Quote:
That's been a blind spot for him, not doubt. But the point about attention to detail definitely holds. You hear it repeatedly about Belichick too. I read recently that the Monday before their 2014 playoff game with Baltimore he began his team talk by saying that the Raven long snapper might be vulnerable to snapping poorly if he were heavily pressured. Later in those same playoffs, the goal line defense that resulted in the Malcolm Butler pick had been installed something like two years prior but hadn't been used until that particular play.
I don't remember what documentary I saw it on, it might have been the Two Bills documentary and I also heard it referenced by Tony Romo as well. At one point in a game, Parcells told Belichick to shift up the way the defense was playing because they started to get into a predictable pattern. They were playing well, but he didn't want to give away tendencies both in the game and on tape.
Romo mentioned that when he was doing film study on the Patriots when Dallas played them, Belichick would change up the defense seemingly at random just to screw with the teams doing film study and trying to find patterns/tendencies.
And there was this story last year how Belichick used the pre-season to notice tendencies in the Texans' safeties and burned them in the regular season on a long TD to Cooks. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/two-plays-show-how-bill-belichick-is-playing-chess-while-the-texans-play-checkers/ - ( New Window )
Put that into perspective. Giants beat them in the biggest game of the year, twice.
The first time, I felt like the Patriots took the Giants for granted. Especially when they went for it on 4th down and passed up a 48-49 yard field goal. The arrogance of the Pats.
the 2nd game, I just felt like the Giants were a better team, even at 9-7.
It's just incredibly impressive.
- '93 BC over #1 Notre Dame in South Bend
- '96 playoffs Jacksonville over Denver
- Super Bowl 42
Eli also gets huge credit for twice making historic plays in game winning drives to turn Super Bowl losses into wins. To me, those two drives alone are worth more than some entire HOF careers.
Quote:
In comment 14266885 Go Terps said:
Quote:
That's been a blind spot for him, not doubt. But the point about attention to detail definitely holds. You hear it repeatedly about Belichick too. I read recently that the Monday before their 2014 playoff game with Baltimore he began his team talk by saying that the Raven long snapper might be vulnerable to snapping poorly if he were heavily pressured. Later in those same playoffs, the goal line defense that resulted in the Malcolm Butler pick had been installed something like two years prior but hadn't been used until that particular play.
I don't remember what documentary I saw it on, it might have been the Two Bills documentary and I also heard it referenced by Tony Romo as well. At one point in a game, Parcells told Belichick to shift up the way the defense was playing because they started to get into a predictable pattern. They were playing well, but he didn't want to give away tendencies both in the game and on tape.
Romo mentioned that when he was doing film study on the Patriots when Dallas played them, Belichick would change up the defense seemingly at random just to screw with the teams doing film study and trying to find patterns/tendencies.
And there was this story last year how Belichick used the pre-season to notice tendencies in the Texans' safeties and burned them in the regular season on a long TD to Cooks. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/two-plays-show-how-bill-belichick-is-playing-chess-while-the-texans-play-checkers/ - ( New Window )
Put that into perspective. Giants beat them in the biggest game of the year, twice.
The first time, I felt like the Patriots took the Giants for granted. Especially when they went for it on 4th down and passed up a 48-49 yard field goal. The arrogance of the Pats.
the 2nd game, I just felt like the Giants were a better team, even at 9-7.
It's just incredibly impressive.
True, but I think Strahan said it best when he quoted Mike Tyson. "Everyone has a plan until they are punched in the mouth". There are times that even a coach as great as Belichick can't overcome when there is a physical mismatch. Same thing with the 49ers back to back trips to the Meadowlands in the playoffs in 1985 and 1986 and they lost by a combined 66-3, all with Montana and Rice on their roster (until Burt knocked him out). Bill Walsh wasn't a dummy and after the game he was asked what happened and his answer was "the Giants just wrecked our blocking angles" and their whole offense collapsed.
The Pats offensive line couldn't stop the Giants defensive line.
- '93 BC over #1 Notre Dame in South Bend
- '96 playoffs Jacksonville over Denver
- Super Bowl 42
Eli also gets huge credit for twice making historic plays in game winning drives to turn Super Bowl losses into wins. To me, those two drives alone are worth more than some entire HOF careers.
Terps, you know you were going to get my heart aflutter about the BC game, since I was a student there from 92-96. Notre Dame ran up the score on BC in 1992 to send a message to the upstart program. They ran a fake punt up 38-0. I hated Lou Holtz from that moment. Anyway, Coughlin had a chance to go the Giants in 1993, but he said no because he felt that he had unfinished business at BC. First, he thought 2 years wasn't enough time to give to the program. But 2nd, he said he wanted to get back at Notre Dame for that loss. So they prepped pretty much from that game on to the next one in 1993. Notre Dame beat Florida State the week before to get to #1. And BC knocked them off the next week. That was a damn fun time to be at BC. They beat Notre Dame in football when they were #1 and the basketball team eliminated #1 North Carolina in the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament in the Spring.
The 3rd man is Ernie Adams. learn more at the link
Ernie Adams - ( New Window )
Quote:
Obviously a blocked punt is unlikely, but why keep a guy out there for punts if he's not even going to try? A mediocre backup who's at least giving effort will do more for you than that.
What's worse is that they were in defense stay. Essentially their only job was to prevent exactly what the Saints did. A punt block isn't what they are going for, they are there to keep the defense from trying a fake. And because Cox essentially took the play off, the Saints waited for him to be in and the situation to arise and run it at him. That's on Cox and also on the Eagle coaches for not seeing this.
Carl Banks often says that what has hurt the Giants in the past few years, beyond talent, was attention to detail and effort. This is a case in point.
I remember saying the Saints look like they are going to fake and the Eagles are ready for it. I had to rewind the DVR to watch it again to confirm and wonder how the Eagles didn’t stop it. Now I know.
Eagles should have asked for a measurement to give themselves time to think about it and then taken the flag to make the Saints gain ten and a half yards.
Sure, Brees could pull it off, but I think you're odds are better.
It's hard for some people to keep it under wraps. What use is being brilliant if other people aren't aware of your brilliance?
It's a common trope in movies/TV when the cops are trying to catch a mastermind and the mastermind will taunt the police because he needs them to know just how clever he is.