Those of us who watch the Giants up close can see that the Giants are moving to more of a throw back style of football: Large men dictating the line of scrimmage, emphasis on the run and play action, emphasis on stopping the run and making offenses throw, and emphasis on man and a combination of speed and physical play in the backfield. The Backfield is also composed of relatively short but very athletic players.
There are still a few questions in terms of personnel that probably won't all be answered this year -- Linebackers, Edge Rushers, Oline Depth, Number 1 WR, #2 RB -- but if this is what the Giants are building -- can this type of football have sustained success in a pass happy league?
Actually if the Rams had a better QB they definitely could have had a better shot to beat the Pats.
Actually if the Rams had a better QB they definitely could have had a better shot to beat the Pats.
I think what really killed the Rams in the Super Bowl was Gurley not being at full strength and able to play with any impact --
They haven’t gone full “throw back” offense, but as defenses have gotten smaller and faster to compete with modern passing offenses, having a big OL and quality blocking TE and FB creates a good counter punch, especially late in games.
Not sure if the Giants are fully there yet personnel wise, but it’s obvious they’re trying to rebuild that ability, especially during Saquon’s prime
Is it a sustainable way to win? I don’t think so by itself - modern passing game ability is needed. But it will be interesting to see how many other teams start turning back to size and try to create grind it out offensive capability.
Gurley - SB
Fournette- NFC championship game when healthy
Michel - SB Champs going old school Pro I and FB run plays
Giants 5-8 <insert sad violin sound>
You can win in many ways and with many different formulas in the NFL.
The reason why it's working is because teams have now been spending years trying to build defenses better suited to defend the pass. They're trying to use lighter, more mobile linebackers (and even ends) to keep up with the quicker paced offenses.
When you attack these defenses with some heavier sets and start ramming the football down their throats, they're really not equipped to hold up through the course of the game. Eventually the dam just starts to crack and you'll start busting longer gains and will start controlling the clock.
A run heavy approach can and should work now for a lot of the above reasons - but it won't be long before teams wise up to it and defenses start re-shuffing their sets and personnel to better combat it.
You want to be the team that is equipped to attack these weaknesses while they're still more prevalent across the league; but you're going to have to be prepared to zag again when teams start doing things to try taking it away.
Prescott has been good enough because they've been able to control so many games with their rushing attack.
The Saints ran the ball a ton last year. Baltimore was a very, very run heavy team because of Jackson. But they won games that way until the playoffs.
In 2017, IIRC, JAX and MIN were both at the top of the league in rush attempts. Both teams wound up in their respective conference championship games.
There's definitely some correlation.
A clock controlling offense that chews up time and yardage is often a benefit to the defense. You keep yours fresh and continue to wear down the other team.
As the game goes on, you start to gain more and more of an advantage against a tired defense.
One of the worst things for a defense is an offense that goes 3 and out all the time... like ours was doing for the majority of 2017.
You positively cannot play defense in this league when your offense isn't able to stay on the field for any length of time. It's very, very difficult.
You can win in many ways and with many different formulas in the NFL.
He also adjusts to the league. 3-4 or 4-3 depending on the economics of the league.
When you're taking ten or fifteen plays to score, you're keeping the opposing team's offense on the bench, preventing them from scoring. You're also keeping your defense fresh and wearing theirs down.
The best defense is still a good offense, and by "good" I mean efficient. An offense that can consistently move the chains, convert on 3rd down, control the clock, minimize penalties and turnovers, and score touchdowns in the red zone. It doesn't matter how you do it - run or pass - it just matters that you do it.
I think there's a bit more to it than that, like the current status of the WR position.
Quote:
When it takes a team 10 or 15 plays to score, it's important to keep the other team from scoring. While I think some of the players we picked in the draft will be good players, we still don't have a legit pass rusher on the DL. We may be good on offense, the Giants may get blown out.
When you're taking ten or fifteen plays to score, you're keeping the opposing team's offense on the bench, preventing them from scoring. You're also keeping your defense fresh and wearing theirs down.
The best defense is still a good offense, and by "good" I mean efficient. An offense that can consistently move the chains, convert on 3rd down, control the clock, minimize penalties and turnovers, and score touchdowns in the red zone. It doesn't matter how you do it - run or pass - it just matters that you do it.
An efficient offense, would score in the least amount of plays. Is it better to stay on the field, or get the most yardage per play? The second option is the philosophy of modern offenses go with, which prize efficiency.
But if the defense is bad, it really doesn't matter how long we keep the other offense off the field, does it? If they score every time (which the throwback offense absolutely will not), then they lose.
Quote:
In comment 14521410 mikeinbloomfield said:
Quote:
When it takes a team 10 or 15 plays to score, it's important to keep the other team from scoring. While I think some of the players we picked in the draft will be good players, we still don't have a legit pass rusher on the DL. We may be good on offense, the Giants may get blown out.
When you're taking ten or fifteen plays to score, you're keeping the opposing team's offense on the bench, preventing them from scoring. You're also keeping your defense fresh and wearing theirs down.
The best defense is still a good offense, and by "good" I mean efficient. An offense that can consistently move the chains, convert on 3rd down, control the clock, minimize penalties and turnovers, and score touchdowns in the red zone. It doesn't matter how you do it - run or pass - it just matters that you do it.
An efficient offense, would score in the least amount of plays. Is it better to stay on the field, or get the most yardage per play? The second option is the philosophy of modern offenses go with, which prize efficiency.
An efficient offense would score consistently. The amount of plays doesn't matter, nor does the yardage gained per play, as long as they're achieving positive results without any wasted effort. It doesn't have to be explosive, just efficient, and that also includes not turning the ball over or committing a lot of penalties.
Are you assuming that our defense will be bad? Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but I'm going to adopt a wait-and-see attitude.
I remember going back and watching our 2011 Super Bowl run. That 2011 offensive line was starting to decline, but it was still a hell of a lot better than anything I've seen from the Giants in recent years.
I think plenty of Giant fans want physical football. The only thing worse then a losing Giants football team is a soft finesse losing Giant football team. I'm very happy with getting big men. Let the rest of the league try to chase going finesse and pass happy.
SB teams have good QBs who make plays when they are needed.
The Saints ran the ball a ton last year. Baltimore was a very, very run heavy team because of Jackson. But they won games that way until the playoffs.
In 2017, IIRC, JAX and MIN were both at the top of the league in rush attempts. Both teams wound up in their respective conference championship games.
There's definitely some correlation.
The question for me is which way the correlation points - are the good teams good because of their commitment to the running game, or are they running the ball to milk the clock with a lead (because they're a good team that often has the lead)?
But, I do believe each of those two aspects of the game do have an effect on one another.
A really strong rushing offense that can eat up clock isn't going to make a terrible defense good. I just think they'll provide them a better chance to succeed - or, less chances to fail might be a better way of wording it.
An offense that can't sustain drives or stay on the field is almost always going to adversely affect the defense through the course of the game.
Similarly, a dominant defense should logically afford a poor offense more opportunities to put points on the board with the game in reach.
Football is such a synergistic sport - I always say this. If you have a bad cog somewhere, it'll slow the machine down. Each part works off the other.
SB teams have good QBs who make plays when they are needed.
Your defense also has to get a stop every now and then.
And you can't afford any mistakes on special teams, either.
Meh. I'm not sold on him. Way inconsistent. Doesn't show up in big games. He was bad in December last year. Awful in the playoffs and Super Bowl.
He was fantastic for 3/4 of it... but he was dreadful in Chicago. None of his playoff performances were anything to write home about. He racked up 339 yards against the Eagles, but the Rams lost that game and Goff didn't throw for any scores and did get picked off once. He also threw the ball over 50 times, so the yardage isn't that impressive.
He chewed up a woeful 49er defense in Week 17 - but that wasn't quite enough to sell me or change my thinking that he's got a bit left to prove.
For all the talk about the Patriots doing this and doing that, and they are the most malleable team I've ever seen, they are almost always one of the best at blocking and tackling.
"Throw Back" football, I'm assuming, playing a very run-oriented approach. Grind the yard, control the clock, play keep away, win field position, etc.
I think it has a place, but the rules are too enticing to move the ball mostly through the air. It's very efficient with the right mix of QB, OL, receivers, etc.
For all the talk about the Patriots doing this and doing that, and they are the most malleable team I've ever seen, they are almost always one of the best at blocking and tackling.
"Throw Back" football, I'm assuming, playing a very run-oriented approach. Grind the yard, control the clock, play keep away, win field position, etc.
I think it has a place, but the rules are too enticing to move the ball mostly through the air. It's very efficient with the right mix of QB, OL, receivers, etc.
The way that Pats defense played through the playoffs and SB was phenomenal. They pressured the hell out of everyone, they totally flustered Rivers and Mahomes (For most of the game). Everyone talks about Brady but their defense was just outstanding at the end of last year, and I feel the main reason they won (again! lol)
Regardless, if you can control the line of scrimmage I think you at least give yourself the opportunity to play meaningful games in December. Of course, a lesser QB and weak skill players will make it a very daunting test to go all the way but at lease your season is not over in October like it has been for the Giants for far too long.
Since the passing game openned up and TEs became such a threat in the passing game, you saw a number of teams getting faster and (sometimes) smaller LBs. Now it seems like the running game is coming back into focus across the league b/c of those smaller and faster LBs can be negated by a power OL.
It is an ever changing league.
You can win in many ways and with many different formulas in the NFL.
Did Belichick grow up on a farm? Seems like he has mastered the ability to correctly size up all his players every year. Then he designs a game plan featuring an ever changing offense and defense that is custom made to players talent.
Hard to believe that 1 guy totally redesigns his team every year. I've never seen any coach in any sport do this as well as BB. True Hall of Famer.
The constant is the rules. If you can't touch the QB, can't touch WRs, and if the NFL starts enforcing RBs not lowering heads, that's going to make throwback football impossible.
This. It also mitigates a QBs weakness’s IMO a bit. Also can keep your defense off the field. Which is what I think also is over
Looked these days w the emphasis on passing
That’s actually a good question. Hall of Fame QB + great D - knuckle head RB = still likely in the hunt...
That said, I was thinking last week that I only hope we don't turn Barkley into Rodney Hampton. Hampton was a very dynamic RB when we drafted him and a vital part of the passing game as well. Barkley is a much better player than him, but will we run the risk of running him into the ground behind a terrible line as we did with Rodney?
Last year, as great as he was, we still didn't use Barkley to his full potential, as his touches seemed to be limited. Are we going to do the same this year? I don't see how with no true WR1, especially the 4 games Tate is out.