Next Season

[Allstarjim]

BTW I'm not saying that was the reason we lost. Primarily it was the offensive line, followed closely by the defensive play calling, followed closely by the 6 drops our receivers had last night. SIX.

[ksm7]

I'm actually writing the re-watch analysis, and while I won't go into it here, Storm, you are the one who is way off. Throughout the game, the blitz was far more effective than the zone defense, as I suspected from my initial viewing. When they blitzed, they were successful as a defense MOST OF THE TIME.

 

Specifically, I believe it was 4 times that they did the 'Rush 3 drop 8 Defense', and none of those times were they able to generate pressure, every time the 3 rushers were doubled, all three of them, and EVERY TIME it resulted in a completed pass. Only once did that completion result in a 4th down, short of the sticks. One of those 4 times was on the 80 yard drive that the Eagles won the game on. Fewell DID NOT blitz enough. You are completely wrong, Storm.

 

[Allstarjim]

Regarding the lack of blitzing...gotta believe from a coaching standpoint that would've exposed our young linebackers even more.

 

Had our front 4 held their own a little more or actually gotten any pressure of their own, we might have seen a blitzing LB here or there.

 

gmenroc, the longer the play goes on, the more they are exposed. The longer they are asked to run around in coverage, the higher the chances are that they are going to give up a play. My answer to that is, since they are a coverage liability anyways, and the subsequent throws are going to one on one situations whether we blitz or not, SEND THE LINEBACKERS! I'm assuming a nickel defense much of the time, just send Kiwi and Herzlich, or Williams and Herzlich, and put those safeties up on the Eagles' receivers and dare Young to beat the Giants under duress.

[ksm7]

gmenroc, the longer the play goes on, the more they are exposed. The longer they are asked to run around in coverage, the higher the chances are that they are going to give up a play. My answer to that is, since they are a coverage liability anyways, and the subsequent throws are going to one on one situations whether we blitz or not, SEND THE LINEBACKERS! I'm assuming a nickel defense much of the time, just send Kiwi and Herzlich, or Williams and Herzlich, and put those safeties up on the Eagles' receivers and dare Young to beat the Giants under duress.

 

because it's all that easy? the dog seems to recall that Young is a mobile QB, and it was oh about a year ago when another mobile QB leading a crazy 4th quarter comeback against the giants was backed up inside his own 20 yard line or so, and a blitzing aaron ross came crashing in from the edge on a third and long, and allowed that mobile QB to break contain and run 30 yards or so down the sideline...then do the same thing a few plays later, culminating in the game tying score...perhaps he didn't want to make the same mistake, but then again, that didn't seem to bother the special teams so why not...

[Allstarjim]

because it's all that easy? the dog seems to recall that Young is a mobile QB, and it was oh about a year ago when another mobile QB leading a crazy 4th quarter comeback against the giants was backed up inside his own 20 yard line or so, and a blitzing aaron ross came crashing in from the edge on a third and long, and allowed that mobile QB to break contain and run 30 yards or so down the sideline...then do the same thing a few plays later, culminating in the game tying score...perhaps he didn't want to make the same mistake, but then again, that didn't seem to bother the special teams so why not...

 

Did you watch the game? Young never left the pocket. You're seriously going to compare Young to Vick with a straight face? You can get beat on plays of aggressiveness, or get beat by being passive. The percentages say that the Giants, game in and game out, including THIS game, have more success when they send blitzers, because they are hurrying throws and those throws are falling incomplete. So I guess it is that easy.

[Firstnten]

This team was dead and buried before the season by most including myself. The loss to the eagles last year was 1000% more devastating then this loss. There are several things that bother me about the loss.

 

(1) Getting punked at home and when I say punked I mean having d Jackson piss on the Giants bench and the Philly D basically making a meal out of Manning.

 

(2) Letting Philly off the hook. This could have been a devastating blow of biblical perorations and in the words of Dennis Green...."We let them off the hook"

 

(3) Anyone who questions mannings toughness or leadership skills now is an unmitigated moron and needs to fuck off. Your not a Giants fan and whats worse is you don;t know shit about football.

 

(4) The eagles have become a team of wannbe thugs and cheap shot artist's

 

(5) The Giants oline sucks balls. they can;t run block at all period end of story.

 

(6) Jacobs is finished. He cannot break a tackle.

 

(7) Baas was a waste of money when he's not hurt he's a human turnstyle.

 

(8) Six dropped passes is pathetic. embarrassing and sickening.

[Allstarjim]

Agree with everything but #7. Baas was the best O-lineman last night. I really paid attention to the O-line play in the re-watch, and Baas was very good. He had a couple of negative plays, but he also had some pancakes and overall he was good. The human turnstile was David Diehl... and Diehl has been terrible at Guard all season long.

[ksm7]

Did you watch the game? Young never left the pocket. You're seriously going to compare Young to Vick with a straight face? You can get beat on plays of aggressiveness, or get beat by being passive. The percentages say that the Giants, game in and game out, including THIS game, have more success when they send blitzers, because they are hurrying throws and those throws are falling incomplete. So I guess it is that easy.

 

so, young isn't a potential threat running from the pocket? you talk as if NFL coaching is so simplistic. it's not. for every easy scenario that you think can be solved from your couch at home, they have 25 scenarios that they are preparing for on any given play. blitz and worry about match-up problems caused by jackson, celek, mccoy...etc...b/c lord knows the giants have never been beaten by a fast eagle back getting a dump pass off against the blitz in man coverage in the past...

 

by the way, tom coughlin called...he asked that you have the "rewatch analysis report" on his desk by 8 pm tonight. the dog told him he was being unreasonable, as that certainly isn't enough time, and once more, his time parameters aren't enforcable since you actually really don't work for the giants. he seemed puzzled by this. please call him directly to clarify, as the dog is uncomfortable being in the middle of this...

[gmenroc]

gmenroc, the longer the play goes on, the more they are exposed. The longer they are asked to run around in coverage, the higher the chances are that they are going to give up a play. My answer to that is, since they are a coverage liability anyways, and the subsequent throws are going to one on one situations whether we blitz or not, SEND THE LINEBACKERS! I'm assuming a nickel defense much of the time, just send Kiwi and Herzlich, or Williams and Herzlich, and put those safeties up on the Eagles' receivers and dare Young to beat the Giants under duress.

I understand that the more time we give the opposing QB, the likelier the opponent will make a play...especially with guys like Desean Jackson and Lesean McCoy.

 

I'm trying to look at it from Fewell's perspective. My D-Line is supposedly the strength of the defense. So, in a sense, we play with a 'front 4' and 'back 7' as opposed to a 'front 7' and 'back 4' to rely on the strength and cover up the weakness. Scheming so that you have numbers in areas of the field to cover individual player weaknesses seems to be the way it went. Essentially having 7 in coverage was the game plan, not so much to limit where Young could go with the ball, but to hide our weakness in pass coverage. Should Fewell have experimented a little more with rushing a corner or a linebacker or running a stunt - there I could agree because you'd be using experienced players. There wasn't any variety in the defense last night, but given the inexperience, I could see why Fewell decided to keep it vanilla. I would have liked to see a little more blitzing too, if for no other reason than to see what it took to get to Young, especially in the 2nd half after the front 4 weren't getting to Young at all. Does it take 5, 6, or do we have to send the whole house to get home? That said though, I can certainly understand Fewell's reluctance to blitz last night.

[Allstarjim]

so, young isn't a potential threat running from the pocket? you talk as if NFL coaching is so simplistic. it's not. for every easy scenario that you think can be solved from your couch at home, they have 25 scenarios that they are preparing for on any given play. blitz and worry about match-up problems caused by jackson, celek, mccoy...etc...b/c lord knows the giants have never been beaten by a fast eagle back getting a dump pass off against the blitz in man coverage in the past...

 

by the way, tom coughlin called...he asked that you have the "rewatch analysis report" on his desk by 8 pm tonight. the dog told him he was being unreasonable, as that certainly isn't enough time, and once more, his time parameters aren't enforcable since you actually really don't work for the giants. he seemed puzzled by this. please call him directly to clarify, as the dog is uncomfortable being in the middle of this...

 

No, Young is not a big threat to run. He is more of a threat than Eli, but he's no Vick, and he's not Aaron Rodgers either in terms of mobility. He's about as mobile as say, Drew Brees. And all I can say about your nonsensical post is that when the Giants blitz, it works, when they drop 8, it fails. I've seen enough of both to say that if one way of doing something fails consistently, you should try something else. Kind of like your arguments in this forum, or your weak attempts at insulting me.

[Allstarjim]

I understand that the more time we give the opposing QB, the likelier the opponent will make a play...especially with guys like Desean Jackson and Lesean McCoy.

 

I'm trying to look at it from Fewell's perspective. My D-Line is supposedly the strength of the defense. So, in a sense, we play with a 'front 4' and 'back 7' as opposed to a 'front 7' and 'back 4' to rely on the strength and cover up the weakness. Scheming so that you have numbers in areas of the field to cover individual player weaknesses seems to be the way it went. Essentially having 7 in coverage was the game plan, not so much to limit where Young could go with the ball, but to hide our weakness in pass coverage. Should Fewell have experimented a little more with rushing a corner or a linebacker or running a stunt - there I could agree because you'd be using experienced players. There wasn't any variety in the defense last night, but given the inexperience, I could see why Fewell decided to keep it vanilla. I would have liked to see a little more blitzing too, if for no other reason than to see what it took to get to Young, especially in the 2nd half after the front 4 weren't getting to Young at all. Does it take 5, 6, or do we have to send the whole house to get home? That said though, I can certainly understand Fewell's reluctance to blitz last night.

 

gmenroc, see, that is an intelligent post. You are the anti-Dog much like Fewell is the anti-Spags. Your post is logical. However, within the game, when you see that you are unsuccessful generating pressure on the QB with just 4, you need to try 5. You simply can't allow an NFL QB to sit back there and have a nice pocket and just wait for receivers to come open. It's called an in-game adjustment, and Fewell doesn't make them. And one more thing, I could support this argument about rushing 4 if that's what they did. Four times on 3rd down though, they only sent 3 at Young. All four plays resulted in completions, three of them for first downs, one of THOSE came on 3rd and 10 during the final drive. It's a defensive set I've seen the Giants use plenty this year and rarely has it stopped the opponent from getting a first. The Giants blitzed earlier in the game and it was working. They used the blitz a few times to get off the field, successfully.

[gmenroc]

gmenroc, see, that is an intelligent post. You are the anti-Dog much like Fewell is the anti-Spags. Your post is logical. However, within the game, when you see that you are unsuccessful generating pressure on the QB with just 4, you need to try 5. You simply can't allow an NFL QB to sit back there and have a nice pocket and just wait for receivers to come open. It's called an in-game adjustment, and Fewell doesn't make them. And one more thing, I could support this argument about rushing 4 if that's what they did. Four times on 3rd down though, they only sent 3 at Young. All four plays resulted in completions, three of them for first downs, one of THOSE came on 3rd and 10 during the final drive. It's a defensive set I've seen the Giants use plenty this year and rarely has it stopped the opponent from getting a first. The Giants blitzed earlier in the game and it was working. They used the blitz a few times to get off the field, successfully.

 

Again, I believe there at the least, been some variety in blitzing. However, given the game was tied 10-10, it would appear that Fewell's scheme was working.

 

Ranking the reasons for losing:

 

1. Offensive Line - no run block, no pass block

2. Defensive Line - no pressure

3. Missed opportunities - bad tackling in spots and dropped passes

4. Coaching

 

Coaching has to be 4, because if we're all honest, nobody is talking about it if the top 3 were actually taken care of.

[Allstarjim]

Again, I believe there at the least, been some variety in blitzing. However, given the game was tied 10-10, it would appear that Fewell's scheme was working.

 

Ranking the reasons for losing:

 

1. Offensive Line - no run block, no pass block

2. Defensive Line - no pressure

3. Missed opportunities - bad tackling in spots and dropped passes

4. Coaching

 

Coaching has to be 4, because if we're all honest, nobody is talking about it if the top 3 were actually taken care of.

 

I do know that the Eagles scored 14 points on plays when the Giants DIDN'T blitz. The game winner was busted zone when Herzlich didn't drop back to his spot in time, and Grant just let Cooper run by him. There were at least 4 occasions where the Giants stopped an Eagles possession/drive, when they brought the blitz.

 

They blitzed twice on 3rd downs during the final drive. The first came on 3rd and 3 and Harbor caught a short pass and got 6 yards. The second time was a third and 4 where Webster missed a tackle on Jackson. On another blitz on 2nd and 16, Avant made a shoestring catch that Tollefson narrowly missed deflecting. It was a bad throw and Avant bailed them out. The blitz worked several other times on the drive on earlier downs. But 3 times on 3rd down and an obvious passing situation they didn't blitz and Young made EASY completions. In other words, we were very close the times we did blitz, to stopping them on that last drive, and weren't close at ALL to stopping them when we didn't blitz. There was another 3rd down that I'm not counting as a blitz situation because that was 3rd and 1 and that was just Vince Young second effort on the QB sneak where we almost had him stopped again.

[Allstarjim]

So all in all, the Giants were never really burned in this game when they sent blitzers. The Eagles got a few short completions, but they never got a long play when we blitzed.

[ksm7]

No, Young is not a big threat to run. He is more of a threat than Eli, but he's no Vick, and he's not Aaron Rodgers either in terms of mobility. He's about as mobile as say, Drew Brees. And all I can say about your nonsensical post is that when the Giants blitz, it works, when they drop 8, it fails. I've seen enough of both to say that if one way of doing something fails consistently, you should try something else. Kind of like your arguments in this forum, or your weak attempts at insulting me.

 

the dog thinks you need to spend more time in the film room breaking down opponents...

 

and the bottom line is, if you had the level of understanding needed to develop a game plan in the NFL, you would be coaching at some level, not pretending to be one in your living room. there is a lot more that goes into a game plan beyond, "duh, I think we should blitz since, uhh, I see on my tv that it could mean more pressure, uhhh..."

 

you have no idea what a coach does all week at practice...what they evaluate on film (that would be real coaches breaking down film and going through years and years of trends, both of players and coaches...etc...)you're the type of guy that thinks you could have a better approach to heart surgery b/c you watched ER...now where is that "rewatch analysis report" dammit!

[fringe]

Everyone could see VY was a deer in the headlights when he started the game. We gave him time to get composed, have success, start feeling it.

 

 

That's a coaching decision. Not x's and o's- strategy all the same. Parcells would've ended this in Q1.

[ksm7]

No, Young is not a big threat to run. He is more of a threat than Eli, but he's no Vick, and he's not Aaron Rodgers either in terms of mobility. He's about as mobile as say, Drew Brees. And all I can say about your nonsensical post is that when the Giants blitz, it works, when they drop 8, it fails. I've seen enough of both to say that if one way of doing something fails consistently, you should try something else. Kind of like your arguments in this forum, or your weak attempts at insulting me.

 

 

here...the dog will help you out with a report from an actual person in the know...a real live professional NFL scout:

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/20468/comparing-newton-young-at-this-stage

 

so Young is a runner...has difficulty reading defenses...relies on athleticism to escape and make plays...hmmmm...blitzing may drive him to his comfort level...

[osi724dasack]

Yea Young can definately run a bit

[UK-Giantsfan]

fucking sensational thread boys .....i havent been to sleep for 36 hours now ....and im still angry ...but this is proper ranting ...keep it up

[Storm]

The defense had philly inside the 20with 9 minutes plus on the clock and vince young back there, and they proceeded to let the eagles have their longest drive in ten years! And burn seven minutes off the clock. No, the offense wasn't good, and no our coaching sucked. But with all that time left and at home and keep this in mind that the majority of our payroll and more of our drafting players has focused on defensive players, that unit came up short big time. So yes, I do blame them, and that's on fewell. They had a tie game at that point and they sucked except for kiwi. And storm you can call us all dopes for disagreeing with you, but that point I just made is the point in last nights game, we blitzed vick in philly, we blitzed brady, we led the league in sacks last night, so your "we're not a blitzing team" really holds no water here.

 

Keep in mind last year that the offense had 31 points on the eagles and a 14 point lead and fewell couldn't figure out a way to hold it.

 

If dom capers had our defence we'd be killing teams with the talent we have, fewell is good one week, bad the next 3.

 

We get sacks from out front 4. That's not from blitzing. That's from them getting pressure and dominating mano a mano. Which the team is built around. You can't ask a leopard to change his spots. Making adjustments to become a team you aren't isn't at all easy, like you, Jim, and Nas seem to think, and it is damn near impossible mid game.

 

I didn't call you a dope. And there's just as many people blaming the offense as the three of you blaming the defense. But you are wrong.

 

 

The loss is on the defensive front 7 and the offensive line. Plain and simple. Last time I'm saying it. I've given you plenty of facts behind that. But keep on believing holding a team for 11 of 12 drives (keep in mind how long our offense was able to hold on to the ball....something Jim even manages to blame on the defense) is a bad defensive scheme. It's quite laughable.

 

You can't win with 10 points. Normally, you win with 3 turnovers forced, though not last night since the OFFENSE couldn't do shit with the ball.

[Storm]

gmenroc, the longer the play goes on, the more they are exposed. The longer they are asked to run around in coverage, the higher the chances are that they are going to give up a play. My answer to that is, since they are a coverage liability anyways, and the subsequent throws are going to one on one situations whether we blitz or not, SEND THE LINEBACKERS! I'm assuming a nickel defense much of the time, just send Kiwi and Herzlich, or Williams and Herzlich, and put those safeties up on the Eagles' receivers and dare Young to beat the Giants under duress.

 

We have coverage liabilities so take said linebackers out of coverage and send them to do what they are equally bad at- blitzing- and allow Vince Young to dump it off to Mccoy or hell, Steve Smith in the flat and run for 15 yards. Brilliant.

 

You act like because Vick wasn't in, that team sucked. The rest of the players on their offense are still good. VY does suck but it isn't hard when all he has to do is toss it into the flat because he knows he has guys one on one because we just blitzed the rest of the linebackers that had been swarming to the ball and gang tackling guys and holding them to minimal gains all game.

[Storm]

 

lol, like he thinks I'll read 16 paragraphs of his incorrect opinion on it and be swayed.

[Storm]

so, young isn't a potential threat running from the pocket? you talk as if NFL coaching is so simplistic. it's not. for every easy scenario that you think can be solved from your couch at home, they have 25 scenarios that they are preparing for on any given play. blitz and worry about match-up problems caused by jackson, celek, mccoy...etc...b/c lord knows the giants have never been beaten by a fast eagle back getting a dump pass off against the blitz in man coverage in the past...

 

by the way, tom coughlin called...he asked that you have the "rewatch analysis report" on his desk by 8 pm tonight. the dog told him he was being unreasonable, as that certainly isn't enough time, and once more, his time parameters aren't enforcable since you actually really don't work for the giants. he seemed puzzled by this. please call him directly to clarify, as the dog is uncomfortable being in the middle of this...

 

Thank you, Dog.

 

Prior to that game-winning drive when the defensive personnel failed to make stops, the entire game the Giants were crashing to the ball carrier and gang-tackling dudes and holding big time players to minimal gains. Nothing was wrong with the scheme.

 

Teams can't make plays every single drive....holding the Eagles, shit holding ANY team to 17 points is admirable and enough to win you ball games, most of the time. But when your offense can only score 10 and keep themselves on the field for more than 7 plays only once, you can't expect your defense to blank the Eagles every drive so that you win with 10 points. But all the credit goes AGAINST Fewell and none goes to Morningwheg for a pretty well-called drive. We blitz, dump off passes. We hang back, the ball goes through defenders on to (I think) Avant's shoestrings and into his hands. That's the luck of the draw that it happened to be that final drive.

[Storm]

Again, I believe there at the least, been some variety in blitzing. However, given the game was tied 10-10, it would appear that Fewell's scheme was working.

 

Ranking the reasons for losing:

 

1. Offensive Line - no run block, no pass block

2. Defensive Line - no pressure

3. Missed opportunities - bad tackling in spots and dropped passes

4. Coaching

 

Coaching has to be 4, because if we're all honest, nobody is talking about it if the top 3 were actually taken care of.

 

It's like you read my mind, bro. Jim has already heard all of this, though, you're talking to a wall.

[Storm]

Fewell deserves his criticism for his previous meltdowns (the infamous Colts game, for one)....but last night, it's incorrect to put any part of the loss on Fewell.