Somebody talk me down...

[Nesta]

the dog has to disagree with this...jacobs carried 19 times and ward carried 14...that is consistent attempts at running the ball...and considering that 12 of jacob's 19 carries were for 3 yards or less, well, then it is difficult to stcik with the run for that long...

 

the dog obviously doesn't understand the context of the conversation. I'll reserve any retort for the moment the dog catches up with us.

 

[Nesta]

Bradshaw busts a 65 yarder, and you're critical about it...unbelievable. Akers had a good angle on him, and credit him with being a sound tackler for a kicker. You make it sound like Akers pulled a Leon Lett on Bradshaw.

 

Come on, Money, admit it was a good play. And for the game, he finished with 180 return yards. As for his career, he's already 4th all-time in Giants kickoff return yards.

 

And Bradshaw led the Giants in rushing in the prior postseason ....one more reason why his lack of touches this time around mystifies me. I'm not saying he deserved to bump Jacobs aside, but he should have been mixed in to the gameplan, especially given our struggles in the passing game.

 

Since he's been drafted, no other running back is a bigger threat to take it to the house. Again, that's a fact - he owns the biggest rushing plays each of the last two seasons.

 

http://www.giants.com/team/player305.html

 

I'm in agreement with Joe on this one. Bradshaw is a gamebreaker and should've had more touches this season.

If TC gave up on fumblers, Tiki wouldn't have retired a giant. Fumbling issues are fixable, you can't teach speed, agility, and field vision, all of which Bradshaw has in abundance.

[ksm7]

the dog obviously doesn't understand the context of the conversation. I'll reserve any retort for the moment the dog catches up with us.

 

hmmm...help the dog understand nesta. when you said that running the ball more often early in the game would have resulted in possible success at the end, and the dog countered by saying that they ran and attempted to run often, with less success, the dog is just wondering what other context you are speaking of...please do tell. and when you get the opportunity, be a doll and break joemorrisforprez out again so that he can better explain how a team with better rushing stats automatically translates into that team being more physical...thanks dear...

[fringe]

I'm in agreement with Joe on this one. Bradshaw is a gamebreaker and should've had more touches this season.

If TC gave up on fumblers, Tiki wouldn't have retired a giant. Fumbling issues are fixable, you can't teach speed, agility, and field vision, all of which Bradshaw has in abundance.

i agree as well but i don't think TC gave up on him, just had 2 great options ahead of him. really, how many looks does the # 3 back get on San Diego or Minnesota or anywhere else there's a solid one and two?

[Virginia Giant]

hmmm...help the dog understand nesta. when you said that running the ball more often early in the game would have resulted in possible success at the end, and the dog countered by saying that they ran and attempted to run often, with less success, the dog is just wondering what other context you are speaking of...please do tell. and when you get the opportunity, be a doll and break joemorrisforprez out again so that he can better explain how a team with better rushing stats automatically translates into that team being more physical...thanks dear...

My only question is why are you in in a conversation where Giants fans are discussing their OC?

 

 

Now, running early in the game....

 

 

3 of the first 4 first downs the giants had to open the game were passes. 1 for 3 with an INT. In a playoff game in January against a division rival they passed 3 out of 4 times on first down to open the game. Thats a tempo setter, and it's the wrong tempo.

 

 

 

Personally, I think we were outplayed, but I think maybe the deciding moment of the game was passing 3 straight times on 1st and 5 on the Eagles 21. My beef with Gilldick goes beyond that game,

 

Bottom line, this is his year to show if he has anything betwene the ears. no Plax, no Toomer. A couple rookies, a few guys with potential at wr and Smith. We'll see.

[fishgutmartyr]

My only question is why are you in in a conversation where Giants fans are discussing their OC?

 

 

Now, running early in the game....

 

 

3 of the first 4 first downs the giants had to open the game were passes. 1 for 3 with an INT. In a playoff game in January against a division rival they passed 3 out of 4 times on first down to open the game. Thats a tempo setter, and it's the wrong tempo.

 

 

 

Personally, I think we were outplayed, but I think maybe the deciding moment of the game was passing 3 straight times on 1st and 5 on the Eagles 21. My beef with Gilldick goes beyond that game,

 

Bottom line, this is his year to show if he has anything betwene the ears. no Plax, no Toomer. A couple rookies, a few guys with potential at wr andhttp://www.sportswrath.com/index.php?act=Post&CODE=02&f=12&t=29145&qpid=466529 Smith. We'll see.

 

VG, if Manning audibled a pass on second down in that series, how is it on Gilbride's head? First and 5 is a good time to throw, because even if you don't make it, you're still second and five and in good position to make the first. What if Manning sticks with the play and we get 1-2 yards? What if it's for a loss? It simply wasn't executed the way it could have been--and with Manning audibling on second down, there's no way of knowing if Gilbride's call would have worked.

 

Toomer? He disappeared once the threat of Plax disappeared. I love the guy, but there's no hiding that. Think about it, Gilbride was in a worse situation the end of last year than he is this year--at least he's going into the season knowing that he's working with only young receivers. Maybe he changes his playcalling, and goes more running: what do you say if it doesn't work? What if he sticks to what he's doing and it and it works?

 

Jeez, dude, two years of solid offense, when he helped build records of 14-6 and 12-5, and he still has to prove himself? Spags was very good, but he wasn't Bill Belichick/Buddy Ryan good.

[Nesta]

My only question is why are you in in a conversation where Giants fans are discussing their OC?

 

 

It's only natural that people want to discuss the best of the nfl. Probably safe to assume that the dog's team doesn't have a lot going on lately in the victory column.

[Nesta]

hmmm...help the dog understand nesta. when you said that running the ball more often early in the game would have resulted in possible success at the end, and the dog countered by saying that they ran and attempted to run often, with less success, the dog is just wondering what other context you are speaking of...please do tell. and when you get the opportunity, be a doll and break joemorrisforprez out again so that he can better explain how a team with better rushing stats automatically translates into that team being more physical...thanks dear...

 

Certainly dog. First, I'll clarify, and you can double check to be sure, that I didn't say 'WOULD' anything. That's implying that I have a crystal ball and can see alternate realities. In fact I said 'may' and 'we'll never know.'

Secondly, you posted their total carries for the game and called it 'consistent running'. That's great of you to notice, but has nothing to do with my comment about 'more runs earlier in the game. In the Carolina game, only 6 or 7 of the first 20 plays were passes. The first 9 attempts all went to Jacobs, who only avg. 3.6 ypc. If you take away his longest run of 10, as you so often like to do, he was only getting 2.5ypc. How difficult was it to stick to the run in the first half of that game?

 

What we all should be able to agree upon about the Philly game is the fact that Gilbride's gameplan did not work. That fact alone warrants criticism.

 

A better rushing team, doggy, CAN be viewed as 'more physical' because rushing the football, is the MOST PHYSICAL PART OF GAME. In a game like that one, you're only calling Philly 'more physical' because they won. The fact is, we beat them up just as much. They're only TD's coming off of Giant's mistakes. It was a closer game, than the score shows it to be for sure.

[Herc]

seriously, philly did not play well that day. both teams played like crap ad the giants were just shittier.

[Virginia Giant]

VG, if Manning audibled a pass on second down in that series, how is it on Gilbride's head? First and 5 is a good time to throw, because even if you don't make it, you're still second and five and in good position to make the first. What if Manning sticks with the play and we get 1-2 yards? What if it's for a loss? It simply wasn't executed the way it could have been--and with Manning audibling on second down, there's no way of knowing if Gilbride's call would have worked.

 

Toomer? He disappeared once the threat of Plax disappeared. I love the guy, but there's no hiding that. Think about it, Gilbride was in a worse situation the end of last year than he is this year--at least he's going into the season knowing that he's working with only young receivers. Maybe he changes his playcalling, and goes more running: what do you say if it doesn't work? What if he sticks to what he's doing and it and it works?

 

Jeez, dude, two years of solid offense, when he helped build records of 14-6 and 12-5, and he still has to prove himself? Spags was very good, but he wasn't Bill Belichick/Buddy Ryan good.

Whoever called the 3 pass plays, is an idiot.

 

 

We didn't win the super bowl because of our unstoppable offense, our D held the most prolific offense in history to 14 points, thats why Spags gets a pass while Gillbride gets shit on.

 

Gillbride's job overall has been respectable, but he's lost games based on his decisions, I'll give him a pass for the Eagles game because he didn't have Plax, but I'm not impressed with him, regardless of how pretty the offensive stats are.

 

[Nas]

seriously, philly did not play well that day. both teams played like crap ad the giants were just shittier.

 

I like this guy ^

[ksm7]

Certainly dog. First, I'll clarify, and you can double check to be sure, that I didn't say 'WOULD' anything. That's implying that I have a crystal ball and can see alternate realities. In fact I said 'may' and 'we'll never know.'

Secondly, you posted their total carries for the game and called it 'consistent running'. That's great of you to notice, but has nothing to do with my comment about 'more runs earlier in the game. In the Carolina game, only 6 or 7 of the first 20 plays were passes. The first 9 attempts all went to Jacobs, who only avg. 3.6 ypc. If you take away his longest run of 10, as you so often like to do, he was only getting 2.5ypc. How difficult was it to stick to the run in the first half of that game?

 

What we all should be able to agree upon about the Philly game is the fact that Gilbride's gameplan did not work. That fact alone warrants criticism.

 

A better rushing team, doggy, CAN be viewed as 'more physical' because rushing the football, is the MOST PHYSICAL PART OF GAME. In a game like that one, you're only calling Philly 'more physical' because they won. The fact is, we beat them up just as much. They're only TD's coming off of Giant's mistakes. It was a closer game, than the score shows it to be for sure.

 

fascinating. first, reread. the dog paraphrased your response as more rushing "would" result in "possibly" more success. but to look at the numbers, in the first half of the panthers game, the giants ran 18 times for 105 yards (5.8 yards a carry). take ward's break away run for 34 yards out of the mix, and you are looking at 17 carries for 71 yards (4.1 ypc). they passed 14 times. in the eagles game, they passed 18 times. the first half rushing: 16 carries for 62 yards (3.8 ypc). take away the 24 yard break away and you are looking at 15 attempts for 38 yards (2.5 ypc). To the dog's analysis, they were meeting with more consistent success against carolina, which is why you stick with the run. against philly, not so much. they tried to strike a balance against the eagles (if you go in being one dimensional, you are going to lose most of the time)...can't blame gilbride on this. have to execute. the eagles defense outplayed them on the field...

 

as for the better rushing team...the dog doesn't see all that much out of NY that game. the eagles defense took it to them, and played more physically. if you want to say that both defenses were more physical than the offenses, well then, ok...but the eagles made plays when they had to...they executed when they had to...that's the difference.

[fishgutmartyr]

Whoever called the 3 pass plays, is an idiot.

 

No ONE person called 3 pass plays--that's the point. And once Eli changed the play on second down, what was Gilbride supposed to do--run on 3rd and 5? You guys would have had a stroke...

 

We didn't win the super bowl because of our unstoppable offense, our D held the most prolific offense in history to 14 points, thats why Spags gets a pass while Gillbride gets shit on.

 

Well, that and the offense scoring more than 14 points...

 

Still, what about the games before it? Did the D win all of them?

 

If we're going to pick and choose, I'd say the D sucked going by the Cardinals game and the Carolina game this year. And let's not forget Cleveland. But the overall body of work by the defense tells me otherwise--just as the overall body of work tells me Gilbride has done his job pretty damn well.

 

Gillbride's job overall has been respectable, but he's lost games based on his decisions, I'll give him a pass for the Eagles game because he didn't have Plax, but I'm not impressed with him, regardless of how pretty the offensive stats are.

 

No coordinator on any team made the correct decision every time last year. The only coordinators that could claim that (and they'd probably do it tongue in cheek) were the ones on the '73 Dolphins.

 

We were 3rd in the league in scoring last year, despite all the bullshit at the end of the season. You have to go back to the 60's to see that kind of offense with this team. You're a tough person to please, VG.

[BadEgg]

fascinating. first, reread. the dog paraphrased your response as more rushing "would" result in "possibly" more success. but to look at the numbers, in the first half of the panthers game, the giants ran 18 times for 105 yards (5.8 yards a carry). take ward's break away run for 34 yards out of the mix, and you are looking at 17 carries for 71 yards (4.1 ypc). they passed 14 times. in the eagles game, they passed 18 times. the first half rushing: 16 carries for 62 yards (3.8 ypc). take away the 24 yard break away and you are looking at 15 attempts for 38 yards (2.5 ypc). To the dog's analysis, they were meeting with more consistent success against carolina, which is why you stick with the run. against philly, not so much. they tried to strike a balance against the eagles (if you go in being one dimensional, you are going to lose most of the time)...can't blame gilbride on this. have to execute. the eagles defense outplayed them on the field...

 

as for the better rushing team...the dog doesn't see all that much out of NY that game. the eagles defense took it to them, and played more physically. if you want to say that both defenses were more physical than the offenses, well then, ok...but the eagles made plays when they had to...they executed when they had to...that's the difference.

 

 

Speaking of execution on offense, I don't think you can blame everything on Gilbride. The Eagles had a professional QB in McNabb. Meanwhile, Eli did not have anyone who could trap his errant throws against their helmet. Or maybe ELI ws so bad against the Eagles that not even Tyree could have pulled off another improbable circus catch...

[fishgutmartyr]

Speaking of execution on offense, I don't think you can blame everything on Gilbride. The Eagles had a professional QB in McNabb. Meanwhile, Eli did not have anyone who could trap his errant throws against their helmet. Or maybe ELI ws so bad against the Eagles that not even Tyree could have pulled off another improbable circus catch...

I'd make a snide remark about Romo's performance in the playoffs last year, but, you know...

[ksm7]

Speaking of execution on offense, I don't think you can blame everything on Gilbride. The Eagles had a professional QB in McNabb. Meanwhile, Eli did not have anyone who could trap his errant throws against their helmet. Or maybe ELI ws so bad against the Eagles that not even Tyree could have pulled off another improbable circus catch...

 

yes, in fact you can. the dog has heard an uncomfirmed rumor that the night before the game, gilbride was experimenting with his bill nye science kit and caused a significant change in barometric pressure resulting in some windy conditions. having no time to rework his game plan from a balanced run/pass attack to a shift of what many feel would have been a more successful plan of a 95:5 run:pass ratio, he panicked and kept the plan as is, quietly cursing what was the bitter irony of it all: several years ago he secretely orechstrated a blockbuster trade for a QB unable to throw in a little wind, dismissing the very small odds that one day they would be playing a game in the north east in january that might actually include some wind...

 

if he had only run the ball with jacobs 46 times in the first half....sure the pultry 3 yard a carry average and constant punting would most likely have lead to a steep first half deficit...but imagine all of the wonderful celebration there would have been when jacobs busted off a 60 yard td run in the 4th quarter to close the gap to 76-6....

[Treehugger]

God you're boring Dog.

[Virginia Giant]

No ONE person called 3 pass plays--that's the point. And once Eli changed the play on second down, what was Gilbride supposed to do--run on 3rd and 5? You guys would have had a stroke

 

I honestly don't remember Eli changing the play, I'm not saying he didn't, if you say he did, he did, my memory is just fuzzy. But Eli's track record has shown he likes audibling to runs. If he did aubible to a pass, then I'm actually kinda glad he showing confidence. Still, if he did, it was dumb. And I'm not on board with considering it a good call to pass 1st and 5 on the 21 in a playoff game vs the Eagles. think you run and try to get the first down everytime.

 

 

Well, that and the offense scoring more than 14 points...

 

Still, what about the games before it? Did the D win all of them?

 

I agree to one thing, Gillbride calling for Eli to escape a sack and throw a miracle pass to Tyree and he makign miracle catch. Good call.

 

If we're going to pick and choose, I'd say the D sucked going by the Cardinals game and the Carolina game this year. And let's not forget Cleveland. But the overall body of work by the defense tells me otherwise--just as the overall body of work tells me Gilbride has done his job pretty damn well.

 

Cleveland? With Gill abandoning the run and Eli throwing 3 int's? The D did't step up,but that ones on Gill.

 

 

 

[Nesta]

fascinating. first, reread. the dog paraphrased your response as more rushing "would" result in "possibly" more success. but to look at the numbers, in the first half of the panthers game, the giants ran 18 times for 105 yards (5.8 yards a carry). take ward's break away run for 34 yards out of the mix, and you are looking at 17 carries for 71 yards (4.1 ypc). they passed 14 times. in the eagles game, they passed 18 times. the first half rushing: 16 carries for 62 yards (3.8 ypc). take away the 24 yard break away and you are looking at 15 attempts for 38 yards (2.5 ypc). To the dog's analysis, they were meeting with more consistent success against carolina, which is why you stick with the run. against philly, not so much. they tried to strike a balance against the eagles (if you go in being one dimensional, you are going to lose most of the time)...can't blame gilbride on this. have to execute. the eagles defense outplayed them on the field...

 

as for the better rushing team...the dog doesn't see all that much out of NY that game. the eagles defense took it to them, and played more physically. if you want to say that both defenses were more physical than the offenses, well then, ok...but the eagles made plays when they had to...they executed when they had to...that's the difference.

 

Congratulations. Now you're commenting on the topic in context.

Your original post only mentioned the number of carries and the rush game consistency as if that had any weight alone.

 

Remember dog, I was talking about what may have netted positive results in the game, by running more often (as in the Carolina game) in the first half. I said if you look at the running game in both contests, in the first half up to Ward's 34 yarder (under two minutes), that we had similar running success against both teams, and we did. A 4.3 average in both games up to the last 2 minutes of the first half. Now we both know that you can add or subtract any run to skew the average, so let's just put that aside for a moment.

Regardless of the math doggy, you and I would disagree on this solely because of our differing opinion of Jacobs. You believe he's overrated and I believe his ability to wear down a defense is underrated. Vs Carolina, the first 9 runs went to BJ, vs Philly he split the first 9 with Ward (5 to 4). Essentially, I believe Jacobs can wear down the line and 2nd level if he's used early and often, as in Carolina, and my opinion on the Philly game is predicated on that belief. You don't measure the success of such a strategy by your ypc average in the first half. It's meaningless, as the point is to put the ball in the hands of your wrecking ball and let him knock some dicks in the dirt. Later in the game, you break out the speed (Ward and Bradshaw) and let them take advantage of a tired and battered defense. It's a strategy that has paid off for us many times. It's not exactly being one dimensional as much as being conservative, and let's not forget how well that striking a balance vs the eagles paid off.

 

Yes dog, it goes without saying that both defenses were more physical. It wasn't an offensive game. Did you watch it btw?

Execute when they had to? I guess you could put it that way. I like to think if the Giants were given the gift ball on the 3 and two first downs they could've "executed when they had to". I guess you could say the 2nd score was executing when they had to, but not that first.

[fishgutmartyr]

And I'm not on board with considering it a good call to pass 1st and 5 on the 21 in a playoff game vs the Eagles. think you run and try to get the first down everytime.

 

Then when would you pass? Only on third and long? You're going to have very little success in the air that way. Sorry you feel otherwise, but it wasn't an unreasonable call.

 

I agree to one thing, Gillbride calling for Eli to escape a sack and throw a miracle pass to Tyree and he makign miracle catch. Good call.

 

I'm not belittling the efforts of our defense that game: They were awesome. But you're not giving any credit whatsoever to the offense. That wasn't the only big play of that drive. And both our TDs were passes.

 

Again, we played 20 games that season, not one. Do we even get to the Superbowl if the offense doesn't come back and tie things up after that long Dallas drive in the second quarter of that playoff game? Does Spags get this treatment if Clayton doesn't drop that ball in the 4th--the dude was WIDE open and behind the defenders.

 

Who had a better game in Green Bay--the defense or Manning/Burress?

 

Cleveland? With Gill abandoning the run and Eli throwing 3 int's? The D did't step up,but that ones on Gill.

 

Chalk that one up to my bad memory.

[Nas]

Speaking of execution on offense, I don't think you can blame everything on Gilbride. The Eagles had a professional QB in McNabb. Meanwhile, Eli did not have anyone who could trap his errant throws against their helmet. Or maybe ELI ws so bad against the Eagles that not even Tyree could have pulled off another improbable circus catch...

 

[Nas]

Speaking of execution on offense, I don't think you can blame everything on Gilbride. The Eagles had a professional QB in McNabb. Meanwhile, Eli did not have anyone who could trap his errant throws against their helmet. Or maybe ELI ws so bad against the Eagles that not even Tyree could have pulled off another improbable circus catch...

 

[Nas]

Speaking of execution on offense, I don't think you can blame everything on Gilbride. The Eagles had a professional QB in McNabb. Meanwhile, Eli did not have anyone who could trap his errant throws against their helmet. Or maybe ELI ws so bad against the Eagles that not even Tyree could have pulled off another improbable circus catch...

 

:bye:

[Virginia Giant]

Then when would you pass? Only on third and long? You're going to have very little success in the air that way. Sorry you feel otherwise, but it wasn't an unreasonable call.

 

 

 

I'm not belittling the efforts of our defense that game: They were awesome. But you're not giving any credit whatsoever to the offense. That wasn't the only big play of that drive. And both our TDs were passes.

 

Again, we played 20 games that season, not one. Do we even get to the Superbowl if the offense doesn't come back and tie things up after that long Dallas drive in the second quarter of that playoff game? Does Spags get this treatment if Clayton doesn't drop that ball in the 4th--the dude was WIDE open and behind the defenders.

 

Who had a better game in Green Bay--the defense or Manning/Burress?

 

 

 

Chalk that one up to my bad memory.

 

Fish, I'm not ragging on the Offense, I'm ragging on Gillbride. I think the players did more to overcome some bad calls throughout the season. I know that may sound like I'm just bitching for a the sake of bitching, but there were games I was simply mistified at the play calling. We won the Washington game at their house, but why were we so pass happy in the rain? Albeit we passed well, but thats not an ideal game to throw the ball around.

 

As far as the Dallas game, that score before half was Eli doign what Eli does, he's a clutch as any QB in pressure situations.

 

The reason I disagree with the Eagles game, we were playing in a very close playoff game against a team that gives us fits, let a lone a division rival, and we were without our best target. I firmly believe you need to run the ball on first down there, and if you gain a few yards, run it again.

 

[ksm7]

Congratulations. Now you're commenting on the topic in context.

Your original post only mentioned the number of carries and the rush game consistency as if that had any weight alone.

 

Remember dog, I was talking about what may have netted positive results in the game, by running more often (as in the Carolina game) in the first half. I said if you look at the running game in both contests, in the first half up to Ward's 34 yarder (under two minutes), that we had similar running success against both teams, and we did. A 4.3 average in both games up to the last 2 minutes of the first half. Now we both know that you can add or subtract any run to skew the average, so let's just put that aside for a moment.

Regardless of the math doggy, you and I would disagree on this solely because of our differing opinion of Jacobs. You believe he's overrated and I believe his ability to wear down a defense is underrated. Vs Carolina, the first 9 runs went to BJ, vs Philly he split the first 9 with Ward (5 to 4). Essentially, I believe Jacobs can wear down the line and 2nd level if he's used early and often, as in Carolina, and my opinion on the Philly game is predicated on that belief. You don't measure the success of such a strategy by your ypc average in the first half. It's meaningless, as the point is to put the ball in the hands of your wrecking ball and let him knock some dicks in the dirt. Later in the game, you break out the speed (Ward and Bradshaw) and let them take advantage of a tired and battered defense. It's a strategy that has paid off for us many times. It's not exactly being one dimensional as much as being conservative, and let's not forget how well that striking a balance vs the eagles paid off.

 

Yes dog, it goes without saying that both defenses were more physical. It wasn't an offensive game. Did you watch it btw?

Execute when they had to? I guess you could put it that way. I like to think if the Giants were given the gift ball on the 3 and two first downs they could've "executed when they had to". I guess you could say the 2nd score was executing when they had to, but not that first.

 

um, the dog is now wondering what it is in fact that you are arguing...is it that they should have the run the ball more often earlier in the game (which is what you were originally saying, only now you are argiung that they had similar success in both games...and as the dog pointed out, the number of rushes in the first half of both games was basically the same)...are you arguing that it didn't matter how often they ran, only who got to carry the ball?...or are you arguing something inane about running before the last two minutes of the half, because that is just a bizzare statement...

 

turnovers happen...you and the dog both know that had mcnabb threw an interception at his own 3 yard line, you would be talking about the giants defense making plays when they had to, and the offense capitalizing on turnovers when they have to...of course, you may pull a little razzle-dazzle in their and say something about the giants success running the ball after a turnover when the oppossing team wears green uniforms in the first 26 official minutes of a game...but then, that's you.

 

either way, none of this takes away from the fact that the giants were beaten on the field, and you can't put this on gilbride...