The Giants have 26 defensive guys on the roster including LBs Coughlin and Brown who are basically ST. 10 guys are new to the team this year and 9 are either in their 1st or 2nd year in the league. Several are coming off major injuries and saw little practice time over the summer. We also know most starters didn’t play much in the preseason. How much of the dysfunction to date is both bad planning and unreasonable expectations from the coaches? There’s a lot of justified talk about the young and struggling OL, but to me the defense is the bigger disappointment. Many of the current players are said to be ‘loved’ by Wink, so the finger for now is pointed right at him. Will he fix this mess?
Nah, I hear he's playing video games in his basement.
Nah, I hear he's playing video games in his basement.
Good morning! I missed the context on this.
Can we please get back to a more traditional 3-4 alignment. Where the dt actually two gap. No wonder we stink against the run.
Line the players up and let them play. We have decent talent on the D. We dont need to scheme in order to make up for a lack of talent. You wonder if Wink has gotten carried away with the concept of the positionless defense.
Players that are the jack of all trades are not good at anyone thing.
Can we please get back to a more traditional 3-4 alignment. Where the dt actually two gap. No wonder we stink against the run.
Line the players up and let them play. We have decent talent on the D. We dont need to scheme in order to make up for a lack of talent. You wonder if Wink has gotten carried away with the concept of the positionless defense.
Players that are the jack of all trades are not good at anyone thing.
Doesn’t two-gapping mean it’s a read and react defense?
Can we please get back to a more traditional 3-4 alignment. Where the dt actually two gap. No wonder we stink against the run.
Line the players up and let them play. We have decent talent on the D. We dont need to scheme in order to make up for a lack of talent. You wonder if Wink has gotten carried away with the concept of the positionless defense.
Players that are the jack of all trades are not good at anyone thing.
Again, there was a podcast on this recently and it's actually a very simple defense for the players, but complicated for the opposition.
You guys are looking for something that not there.
Missed tackles are not the result of scheme.
Think.
Read your last sentence.
What do you think the coaches do?
Again, there was a podcast on this recently and it's actually a very simple defense for the players, but complicated for the opposition.
You guys are looking for something that not there.
Missed tackles are not the result of scheme.
Think.
FWIW, tackling is definitely an issue(unrelated to the scheme) - but so is a porous line and inability to get to the QB.
Read your last sentence.
What do you think the coaches do?
Eric, Ok. I know the coaches are obviously going to try and fix this mess. My question is will they be successful? Is it just correctable fundamentals? Or is the talent just not there? Or have Wink’s schemes become too predictable?
I'm not as worried about the defense as I am the offense. Until that OL gets it together - I don't see a way in which the Giants offense can be competitive.
The coaches didn't forget how to coach.
Whether the players will respond is to be determined.
They need to go back to the fundamentals, they're bad at the basics right now
When LT said his famous "let's go out and play like a bunch of crazed dogs", he and the rest of the D players had been in the same system for a few years.
Crazed dogs prolly don't think too much. They just go out and play.
There are quite a few new players on D and many of the returning players are young.
The poor tackling is prolly the result of lack of actual tackling in the offseason (but not sure why it's not a problem for some other teams). Hopefully that will also be corrected soon.
I think the results right now might look similar, but I don't think the scheme is. And I don't think Rust ever had the track record that Wink had in Balt (top 3 or 4 in pts allowed for 3 straight seasons), so I'm going to be patient.
I expect the D to look quite a lot better at some point, hopefully sooner than later.
You could use the "lots of new players" excuse, but they were ALL new players last year, with less overall talent, and the D was better. They had absolutely NOTHING at MIKE LB last year, LW hurt the entire year, rookie Thibs, and a comedy of injuries at CB. New faces every week.
Yet they were noticeably better.
The D - as a unit - looks poor this year. This defensive staff appears to be loaded with Wink, Patterson, Wilkins and Jerome Henderson. Lots of continuity. You've just gotta wonder what the hell is going on, and hope it gets fixed. Would love to hear an honest appraisal from the coaches on what's going wrong vs. last year.
This defense 180 degrees different than Rod Rusts
Quote:
Again, there was a podcast on this recently and it's actually a very simple defense for the players, but complicated for the opposition.
You guys are looking for something that not there.
Missed tackles are not the result of scheme.
Think.
FWIW, tackling is definitely an issue(unrelated to the scheme) - but so is a porous line and inability to get to the QB.
Not true. In fact, Carl Banks specifically pointed out missed tackles ARE scheme related because you need to engage blockers in the context of your responsibilities. So you don't get blocked into pursuit lanes. I saw several examples of this on the 49ers tape.
Yes, the better lines play better against anyone, but perhaps the increase is out of proportion when the Giants play teams like the Eagles, Niners and Cowboys. Also, if his defense spreads around the pass rush attempts, you have to have multiple capable pass rushers which the Giants may not have.
We have seen bad defensive schemes (Lynn, Bettcher, Graham, etc). Wink is a good coach, and I am guessing they come out off the bye stronger.
Quote:
Winks D is sounding like His.
This defense 180 degrees different than Rod Rusts
Yup.
It's like people have stopped using their heads and just emote.
but the use of 2 man defensive lines is a loser. No successful coaches have used that scheme. You cannot be over powered at the line of scrimmage and win football games
but the use of 2 man defensive lines is a loser. No successful coaches have used that scheme. You cannot be over powered at the line of scrimmage and win football games
The Giants play multiple fronts. It sounds like you're paying attention to an unofficial depth chart and not watching the games.
you have a new MLB calling the plays in Okereke
you have a new Safety out there and Adoree is playing a new position
Robinson and Nacho are new, Isaah is new, McFadden is a starter for the first time
You would think there would be growing pains in that ...
Love at safety played an important role and called the plays last year - he started in 16 games
and McKinney may not be who we hoped he would be
but the use of 2 man defensive lines is a loser. No successful coaches have used that scheme. You cannot be over powered at the line of scrimmage and win football games
You mean like the Giants used in SB XXV?
Not true. In fact, Carl Banks specifically pointed out missed tackles ARE scheme related because you need to engage blockers in the context of your responsibilities. So you don't get blocked into pursuit lanes. I saw several examples of this on the 49ers tape.
WTH? You either make the tackle or you miss the tackle and that is not scheme - we are talking physically making the tackle.
You can scheme to eliminate tendencies of teams so that you have superior numbers at the POA, but somebody still needs to put the ballacrrier on his butt. Many times the other night the Giants had people there and just whiffed on the tackle or employed poor technique in tackling. The Giants have poor contain - scheme or read? Most time is is the individual player not making the read.
Quote:
The biggest part of the problem may be the inability of Ojulari and KT to stay healthy and play well enough to help the team
but the use of 2 man defensive lines is a loser. No successful coaches have used that scheme. You cannot be over powered at the line of scrimmage and win football games
You mean like the Giants used in SB XXV?
If this team had Taylor, Reasons, Johnson and Banks playing linebacker, they could get away with a lot of stuff.
And remember the defense for that SB was a one-time thing because the Bills used a no-huddle offense that was pass heavy. Belichick came up with a defense that would have LBs and DBs clogging the underneath routes the Bills loved and then punishing the receivers after they caught the ball. Andre Reed had six catches in the first half but got crushed on the last two going over the middle and wasn't the same after that (2 catches in the second). There were at least two occasions in the 2nd half where he basically gave up on catches because he saw the hit coming.
Then add in the Giants run-heavy clock control game that only let the Bills offense on the field for 19:30. Yet the Bills still gained 371 yards. Carry that out to 30 minutes of TOP and that would translate to more than 500 yards. The key to the game was that even with just two DL on the field the Bills didn't change and lean on the run. And it's a good thing. Thurman Thomas only had 15 carries - but he gained 135 yards.
Also remember on their last drive (to the missed FG), the Bills gained 61 yards - 51 of them on the ground after Levy finally deciding the run was the way to beat the Giants D.
Belichik has been showered with praise for the game plan. And rightfully so. But Marv Levy deserves a big heap of blame for the Bills loss because he refused to adjust.
Quote:
In comment 16221604 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
Again, there was a podcast on this recently and it's actually a very simple defense for the players, but complicated for the opposition.
You guys are looking for something that not there.
Missed tackles are not the result of scheme.
Think.
FWIW, tackling is definitely an issue(unrelated to the scheme) - but so is a porous line and inability to get to the QB.
Not true. In fact, Carl Banks specifically pointed out missed tackles ARE scheme related because you need to engage blockers in the context of your responsibilities. So you don't get blocked into pursuit lanes. I saw several examples of this on the 49ers tape.
Guys getting blocked so they can't make the tackle is one thing. But that's not a missed tackle. When Hawkins comes up to make a tackle on a RB going off-tackle with no one in his way and just whiffs, that was scheme related? When a defensive player just tries to hit the ball carrier with a shoulder and doesn't wrap him up and tackle, that's scheme related?. Guys being out of position might be scheme related. Guys failing to tackle a ball carrier they should have no trouble tackling is a tackling problem.
They are both true and they are both separate issues.
Will discuss my problem with the multiple defense (which we've run for years) later.
but the use of 2 man defensive lines is a loser. No successful coaches have used that scheme. You cannot be over powered at the line of scrimmage and win football games
The Giants play multiple fronts. It sounds like you're paying attention to an unofficial depth chart and not watching the games.
I simply think people don't watch the games too closely Eric.
In the 49ers game, there were 83 defensive snaps, and the Giants true lineman (not Ward or Basham) -- logged 221 snaps.
That means on nearly 90% of the snaps 3 of Williams, Lawrence, Robinson, Roches, or Davidson was played.
At some point someone has to win a 1 on 1 battle
The defense right now is dictating nothing to opposing offenses. On the opposite side it seems everyone beats the Giants OL in 1 on 1
Just go beat Seattle and get to 2-2 and go from there
Is Rod Rust sacred? Why "His"?
Can we please get back to a more traditional 3-4 alignment. Where the dt actually two gap. No wonder we stink against the run.
Line the players up and let them play. We have decent talent on the D. We dont need to scheme in order to make up for a lack of talent. You wonder if Wink has gotten carried away with the concept of the positionless defense.
Players that are the jack of all trades are not good at anyone thing.
There were actually a few straight-up 3-4 looks by the Giants linemen (lined up straight in front of the tackles and center) during the last couple games. I think the idea is that it's supposed to encourage one-on-one matchups, but it just slows the linemen to read and react.
Quote:
Players thinking too much about what they are supposed to do and not focused on the basics.
Can we please get back to a more traditional 3-4 alignment. Where the dt actually two gap. No wonder we stink against the run.
Line the players up and let them play. We have decent talent on the D. We dont need to scheme in order to make up for a lack of talent. You wonder if Wink has gotten carried away with the concept of the positionless defense.
Players that are the jack of all trades are not good at anyone thing.
Again, there was a podcast on this recently and it's actually a very simple defense for the players, but complicated for the opposition.
You guys are looking for something that not there.
Missed tackles are not the result of scheme.
Think.
If the scheme is supposed to be simple, how come it's so easy to screw up by peeling off to block one lineman or other, choosing the wrong holes, or going for the quarterback instead of the running back on a running play (Thibodeaux did one of these in Arizona)?
Quote:
In comment 16221609 section125 said:
Quote:
In comment 16221604 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
Again, there was a podcast on this recently and it's actually a very simple defense for the players, but complicated for the opposition.
You guys are looking for something that not there.
Missed tackles are not the result of scheme.
Think.
FWIW, tackling is definitely an issue(unrelated to the scheme) - but so is a porous line and inability to get to the QB.
Not true. In fact, Carl Banks specifically pointed out missed tackles ARE scheme related because you need to engage blockers in the context of your responsibilities. So you don't get blocked into pursuit lanes. I saw several examples of this on the 49ers tape.
Guys getting blocked so they can't make the tackle is one thing. But that's not a missed tackle. When Hawkins comes up to make a tackle on a RB going off-tackle with no one in his way and just whiffs, that was scheme related? When a defensive player just tries to hit the ball carrier with a shoulder and doesn't wrap him up and tackle, that's scheme related?. Guys being out of position might be scheme related. Guys failing to tackle a ball carrier they should have no trouble tackling is a tackling problem.
Go back to Banks - he also pointed to a picture behind him with he, another Giant, and I think Elway's head and said that's the key to tackling. Multiple hats on the ball carrier. And exactly what I said about the missed tackles (and the opponent causing them). But what does he know?