Change in the Giants offensive gameplan?

[Guest CoachLubrano]

Clasically, the Giants, and the NFC East in general, have been the definition of smashmouth football. Run the ball, play tough defense.

 

I can only assume tough defense is always the idea, but it seems to me that our offense might be shifting.

 

The whole Keyshawn thing got me thinking: The Giants just might be going to a double tight end singleback set for the majority of the series they run. Not only that, but it seems like they might go to more of a zone blocking scheme - this whole offense similar to the one that is run in Indianapolis.

 

The Giants drafted Shiancoe, who unfortunately never panned out the way we may have hoped. We were looking at Keyshawn. We are still interested in Tim Carter. We gave up a lot to draft Eli Manning. Also, the fullback is a dying breed in the NFL (albiet one of my favorite positions).

 

What does this tell me? The Giants are looking to put together an offense featuring a cerebral quarterback with several quality options in the passing game.

 

The NFL is a copycat league, and no one can doubt that Indy's system has been working for them for quite some time. On top of that, most of the more successful teams out there have been gravitating toward a pass happy offense. It is just what seems to work in this league; you can stack the box and stop most running games, but there is almost no way to stop a perfect route and a perfectly thrown pass, given the pass protection has held up.

 

Now I also mentioned a zone blocking scheme. It's obvious to everyone that while our offensive line did do enough for the stellar year Tiki put up, they aren't very dominating, nor are they a force at the point of attack. In fact, that's their weakest area. Luckily, Tiki is the kind of running back that doesn't need his blockers to dominate, he just needs a little room so he can use them as a distraction.

 

A basic man blocking scheme focuses attacking "the bubble" on running plays - the bubble being the space between two defensive lineman where the linebacker is required to fill. In order to be effective, this requires the offensive lineman to fire off the ball at the snap, engage the down linemen, and an iso block is layed on the linebacker, whether by an offensive lineman or the fullback. Before the ball is snapped, the offensive linemen must read the defense and figure out which man is their responsibility on that play. This requires the offensive linemen to be tough, physical, and strong at the point of attack.

 

Since that is obviously not their strength, it might be a good idea to shift toward a zone blocking scheme. A zone blocking scheme is very different from a man blocking scheme, in the effect that before they walk up to the line, the offensive linemen already know where they're going, and what to do when they get there. Instead of being assigned a man, each lineman's responsibility is to get to a certain place, and seal off whoever is there. This requires intelligence, and most of all, for such big guys, the ability to move around.

 

This plays into our strengths running the ball in more than just one way. Zone blocking schemes leave many more options for the back that is being handed the ball. Tiki has the uncanny ability to find the cutback lanes, and uses his blockers extremely well - perhaps better than any other back in the NFL. Instead of trying to overpower the defense on running plays, a zone blocking scheme would allow Tiki to play into his game even more, as his linemen would be on the move, sealing off defenders, and creating more cutback opportunities. Tiki Barber is most definitely at his best when he can get the defense moving one way, hide behind his blockers, then cut back and accelerate. Zone blocking could potentially create a lot more chances for Tiki to use his abilities.

 

This is just an observation of mine. I don't necessarily want this to happen, but it's where I see things going at this point. I could list more reasons I believe so, but before this gets too long, I'd like to see what everyone else has to think.

[Money]

The only starter on the OL that is an inadequate drive blocker is O'Hara. Because of his mobility and lack of strength at the LOS, he might be better suited for zone blocking. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend a change. 3rd in the league in scoring, and 1860 yards from the primary RB suggests that current system is just fine...

[Guest CoachLubrano]

I wasn't saying I think there should be a change or a I think we need a change, this is just my observation.

 

Also, last year turned out pretty well, but a football team is constantly changing and constantly evolving, especially in today's NFL. A good team is always preparing for the future.

[Money]

I wasn't saying I think there should be a change or a I think we need a change, this is just my observation.

 

Also, last year turned out pretty well, but a football team is constantly changing and constantly evolving, especially in today's NFL. A good team is always preparing for the future.

 

And nothing about last year suggests that the Giants are interested in 'evolving' into a zone blocking team. Overall, their personnel -- especially long-term -- is not consistent with that change.

[E-town Giant]

What we need is to change up the playbook a little...

Hell maybe even throw a trick play in there once in a while(I know this won't happen). But it's gotta be tough knowing that you have got the most predictable offensive in the league. Change it up.!

[Money]

What we need is to change up the playbook a little...

Hell maybe even throw a trick play in there once in a while(I know this won't happen). But it's gotta be tough knowing that you have got the most predictable offensive in the league. Change it up.!

 

Predictable offense? Please.

 

That has to be the biggest bullshit comment used commonly by fans. "They're offense is too predictable." Couldn't be further from the truth. To anyone who likes to use this phrase, I recommend reading Phil Simms's book....

[HOUND]

Well if our offense is predictable we're damn good at executing it. You don't finish among the league leaders in scoring offense if the opponent's know what's coming.

[gateb]

During the season, I liked our gameplan. It obviously worked looking at how many points we scored and how much success we had from certain players along with the strides we made confidence wise.

 

However, the playoff game was terrible playcalling and gameplanning. I recall saying during the week that we should be THROWING on first down. Obviously, they will be looking for Tiki to get the ball the first couple of plays on each drive knowing how good he's played and how mediocre Eli had played. And these weren't the Raiders and Chiefs either. I think if we came out throwing, we would've had more success offensively and make the game more competitive. Not win it, but look at least better and maybe make it more exciting.

 

But, we can't change the gameplan just because of that game. With Eli expected to break out this year, I think we should run the same type of system and the gameplans going into games should be similar. So no major changes are necessary.

[xxi-xxv]

I can see the Giants running more 1 back sets next year, but messing with the success of the offense is dangerous. As far as I am concerned they want a dependable 3rd down option for Eli and KEY would have fit that role, its why I think Proehl even at his age would be a great option(or as I might do give Tyree a chance to play in that role). The Giants run a lot out of the 1 back set anyway, so its not like this is something foreign.

[uconngiants]

just pointing out about zone blocking is what you often see Denver do when all the linemen shit to the right (or left) and attack the defense the running back then picks his hole and penetrates the colts often do this alot when you see Peyton diving to give the ball to Edge

 

also E-town i love your sig