Allstarjim Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Well see Fewell's defense is built on letting the opposing team march down the field, AND THEN stopping them. So everything on that drive was actually going exactly as Fewell had foreseen, they just got knocked off their gameplan at the stopping them part by the weird Osi offsides play. Nothing to see here folks. -Z There's a lot of truth in that statement, Z. It's the bend don't break philosophy, and it's weak. It's basically hoping that they will mis-execute along the way, and the defense will capitalize with a pick or fumble recovery. The great defenses in the NFL FORCE those mistakes with aggression, not passively waiting for it to happen for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelmo Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 There's a lot of truth in that statement, Z. It's the bend don't break philosophy, and it's weak. It's basically hoping that they will mis-execute along the way, and the defense will capitalize with a pick or fumble recovery. The great defenses in the NFL FORCE those mistakes with aggression, not passively waiting for it to happen for them. It's funny you bring up "bend but don't break"...I don't remember when but at some point in this game I was thinking of posting on here that the Giants this year seem to have this rumored-to-exist "bend but don't break" defense and how "bend but don't break" is a ridiculous concept. If I'm just being ignorant of some brilliant defensive strategy then please someone enlighten me, but no team in the freaking world comes to play that day saying ok we're gonna give up a lot of yards but we're gonna buckle down when it counts and not let them score. "Bend but don't break" is a cute analyst fabrication to post facto describe defenses that for whatever reasons give up a lot of yards and not as many points. It is not an actual strategy to head into games with. There is a concept when you're facing teams with big play capability to take away the big plays and leave yourself more vulnerable to the short stuff, but that's not what's going on here. -Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandolphScott Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 There's a lot of truth in that statement, Z. It's the bend don't break philosophy, and it's weak. It's basically hoping that they will mis-execute along the way, and the defense will capitalize with a pick or fumble recovery. The great defenses in the NFL FORCE those mistakes with aggression, not passively waiting for it to happen for them. This. Don't let the offense dictate what they want to do. Force them to do shit they aren't comfortable doing. We haven't done that since, oh wait...Spags!!! Play man fucking coverage and blitz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Fewell's D has taken a LOT of criticism on this board this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Actually, Z, I've heard this from D-Coordinators and players. There are plenty of Coordinators that allow the underneath completions and rely on good tackling, keeping the gains smaller, but they are high percentage. The thought process, is of course, to not allow the deep ball, but sometimes that happens anyway. The soft zone we are playing is bend don't break. Keep the play in front of you, don't allow the big play. It sucks hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Fewell's D has taken a LOT of criticism on this board this season. I know I've mentioned it numerous times. Especially in the context of, "I can't believe this guy is getting head coaching interviews!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelmo Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Actually, Z, I've heard this from D-Coordinators and players. There are plenty of Coordinators that allow the underneath completions and rely on good tackling, keeping the gains smaller, but they are high percentage. The thought process, is of course, to not allow the deep ball, but sometimes that happens anyway. The soft zone we are playing is bend don't break. Keep the play in front of you, don't allow the big play. It sucks hard. I hear ya Jim, but what's considered an acceptable smaller gain? With the speed of today's NFL, having your CB stand basically at the first down marker is essentially gifting the offense easy 7-8 yard completions. Isn't that suicide? This approach only works against teams that are deep ball teams that are going to go for the big play even though you're challenging them by trying to take it away. And even those teams eventually adjust and start throwing underneath. I just don't get it. Unless the bend but don't break is somehow producing consistent 3 yard passing gains, the numbers just don't add up to make it feasible and reasonable to employ. -Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. P Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I know I've mentioned it numerous times. Especially in the context of, "I can't believe this guy is getting head coaching interviews!" Rooney rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I hear ya Jim, but what's considered an acceptable smaller gain? With the speed of today's NFL, having your CB stand basically at the first down marker is essentially gifting the offense easy 7-8 yard completions. Isn't that suicide? This approach only works against teams that are deep ball teams that are going to go for the big play even though you're challenging them by trying to take it away. And even those teams eventually adjust and start throwing underneath. I just don't get it. Unless the bend but don't break is somehow producing consistent 3 yard passing gains, the numbers just don't add up to make it feasible and reasonable to employ. -Z Oh I don't get it either. But team's do it. I think that Fewell needs to look at the Ravens defense. Or the Steelers of last year. The come at you for 4 quarters. If they get beat on the deep ball, oh well, next time it's a sack and a fumble recovery. I just don't understand why this defense was so vanilla today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMFP Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I think he deserves a Hellfire Missile, personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandolphScott Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 I think he deserves a Hellfire Missile, personally. What does Ron Paul say about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceman_NYG Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 This just changes week to week. Im not that much against Fewell as I am against Gilbride and his retarded playcalling at inopportune moments. Not calling the run with 1.20 left to play with 3 time-outs at Seattle's 10 is just plain fucking stupid and unacceptable. But in anycase, this is one of the traits we have seen with the Giants. They are the most susceptible to trap games and always come with a big egg to lay on almost all of the trap games we have seen. They do the inevitable and snatch defeat from the the jaws of victory. Time and again, they find ways to lose a game that almost everyone feels is a sureshot victory. Fuck it - this was the egg laying ceremony for the Giants. Bring on the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazedDogs Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I'm.... on the fence on Fewell. But....why were the concepts used so successfully against Vick retired today against Tavaris Jackson? Schematically, Fewell was so good for a couple weeks... then this week it was like he just.... forgot. I don't get it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMFP Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 What I liked about Spags is that when we got beat, we got beat giving it our best. I can handle watching someone score on the Giants when they have gambled on the blitz, as opposed to these bullshit 9 yard slants all the way down the field. And maybe someone should introduce Fewell to the concept of a 4-3 defense, with a linebacker run blitz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 People have been having a lot of success running through our Dline too, which is not a good trend. That used to be a strength of the Giants D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now