Giants defensive problems this past season starting to get exposed

[Nas]

Full Article:

 

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2014/02/giants_defensive_problems_this_past_season_starting_to_get_exposed.html

 

 

Rolle, who was a Pro Bowl safety this season, hinted Tuesday at the Munson Awards that some of the younger Giants weren't working hard enough off the field. That limited what they were able to do on the field.

"There were some times throughout the year when [defensive coordinator] Perry Fewell was restricted from running certain defenses that I know he loves to run — certain defenses that I know could've helped us," Rolle said.

Tuck, a free agent defensive end who finished with 11 sacks, spoke last week of an overcomplicated Giants defense. It forced a veteran intervention with Fewell.

"For us, we outschemed ourselves early," Tuck said while promoting his MetLife National Anthem video. "That speaks to how good [defensive coordinator] Perry Fewell can be. We might have had too much in."

 

[boohyah]

Starting?

[Nas]

Starting?

 

That's the title.

[MikeGL]

Starting

[fishgutmartyr]

This past season?

[Treehugger]

to get?

[Nas]

:big F-U:

[MikeGL]

defensive?

[fishgutmartyr]

I was being serious--this is an odd article for this past season.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Fewell should be gone: but even I have to admit that the defense was the only redeeming factor on this team last season. (I am so happy that I can say last season.)

 

Where was this article in 2012? Or 2010? Or during the regular season in 2011?

[Mr. P]

 

Rolle, who was a Pro Bowl safety this season, hinted Tuesday at the Munson Awards that some of the younger Giants weren't working hard enough off the field.

 

probably part of the reason the young guys everyone was so mad at coughlin for not getting enough time, didn't get time.

[Balloonknot]

Most likely guys like Will Hill spending to much time smoking dope and not studying the playbook and watching film

[Nas]

I was being serious--this is an odd article for this past season.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Fewell should be gone: but even I have to admit that the defense was the only redeeming factor on this team last season. (I am so happy that I can say last season.)

 

Where was this article in 2012? Or 2010? Or during the regular season in 2011?

 

 

By Jordan Raanan/NJ.com

Follow on Twitter

on February 05, 2014 at 10:46 AM, updated February 05, 2014 at 1:31 PM

[JMFP]

Same shit as 2011....Fewell runs an overly complicated scheme that rob the players of instinctive speed.....defense looks tenative and lost.....veterans have intervention with Fewell, scheme is simplified, players are able to play full speed, defense improves.

 

Big difference from 2011 is that the offensive line sucked this year, which impacted Eli, which meant there was no offense to bail the crappy defense out, which resulted in an 0-6 schedule and a season that was pretty much kicked in the nuts before it even began.

 

I'm not a big Fewell fan at all. Paralysis by analysis.

[fishgutmartyr]

 

 

By Jordan Raanan/NJ.com

Follow on Twitter

on February 05, 2014 at 10:46 AM, updated February 05, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Nas, I understand when it was written--the timing of writing it on 2/5 is odd to me.

[Nas]

Nas, I understand when it was written--the timing of writing it on 2/5 is odd to me.

 

Yea it is... I honestly didn't read the whole before posting... I just saw Giants football news and was like a kid in a candy store lol.

[Gman329]

Same shit as 2011....Fewell runs an overly complicated scheme that rob the players of instinctive speed.....defense looks tenative and lost.....veterans have intervention with Fewell, scheme is simplified, players are able to play full speed, defense improves.

 

Big difference from 2011 is that the offensive line sucked this year, which impacted Eli, which meant there was no offense to bail the crappy defense out, which resulted in an 0-6 schedule and a season that was pretty much kicked in the nuts before it even began.

 

I'm not a big Fewell fan at all. Paralysis by analysis.

 

I've had my doubts about Fewell, too. But then again, could he be running stuff that much more complicated than Spags or Foxy did? Or hell, go back to Belichick! I always read about their "sophisticated, disguised" defenses, which were anything but simple or vanilla. So was it a case of Fewell trying to do too much or those players Rolle sighted not working hard enough on their homework assignments and not being prepared? Usually in these cases, the answer is somewhere in the middle, so I'm guessing a little of both.

[fishgutmartyr]

It may have been that Fewell's system is heavily dependent on a good, dependable MLB. Or at the very least, a reliable field general there. You have to wonder if the return of Blackburn in 2011, and the acquisition of Beason this past year coinciding with defensive turnarounds is more than sheer chance.

 

If that's the case, then either the front office better get its shit together, or Fewell needs to adjust. Neither one is happening far too often.

[JMFP]

It may have been that Fewell's system is heavily dependent on a good, dependable MLB. Or at the very least, a reliable field general there. You have to wonder if the return of Blackburn in 2011, and the acquisition of Beason this past year coinciding with defensive turnarounds is more than sheer chance.

 

If that's the case, then either the front office better get its shit together, or Fewell needs to adjust. Neither one is happening far too often.

 

Great points.

[Nas]

It may have been that Fewell's system is heavily dependent on a good, dependable MLB. Or at the very least, a reliable field general there. You have to wonder if the return of Blackburn in 2011, and the acquisition of Beason this past year coinciding with defensive turnarounds is more than sheer chance.

 

If that's the case, then either the front office better get its shit together, or Fewell needs to adjust. Neither one is happening far too often.

Good points as always ... I've never been a fan of Fewel anyway.

[JMFP]

Good points as always ... I've never been a fan of Fewel anyway.

 

 

There was an article in 2011, and another one in 2013, with the exact same subject...... the defense was struggling, veterans approached the coordinator asking him to dial down the complexity, and the players responded with better play.

 

I respect the fact that Fewell can be approached, and is open to making adjustments based on player suggestions.......but I'm troubled by the fact that he had to be approached a 2nd time in 2013.

 

I'm also troubled by the fact that he wasn't able to identify the reason for the struggles himself.....I think a good coordinator should be aware of the problems before his players.

[JMFP]

 

I've had my doubts about Fewell, too. But then again, could he be running stuff that much more complicated than Spags or Foxy did? Or hell, go back to Belichick! I always read about their "sophisticated, disguised" defenses, which were anything but simple or vanilla. So was it a case of Fewell trying to do too much or those players Rolle sighted not working hard enough on their homework assignments and not being prepared? Usually in these cases, the answer is somewhere in the middle, so I'm guessing a little of both.

 

You're probably right.

 

I think Belichick is a very rare coach, and as good of a head coach as he is, he was downright brilliant defensively. Two of the biggest "coaching" wins in Super Bowl history are a direct result of his ability to understand how to counter his opponent. The Buffalo Bills were loaded in 1990.....the Giants were an aging but smart team at that point. And against the St Louis Rams, the Patriots were totally outgunned.

 

Also, I don't think Reese values smart players as much as athletic players....I just think that's his bias.

 

It may have been that Fewell's system is heavily dependent on a good, dependable MLB. Or at the very least, a reliable field general there. You have to wonder if the return of Blackburn in 2011, and the acquisition of Beason this past year coinciding with defensive turnarounds is more than sheer chance.

 

If that's the case, then either the front office better get its shit together, or Fewell needs to adjust. Neither one is happening far too often.

 

Agreed.....a good MLB is extremely important in a cover 2 defense. And Fewell has his roots with Lovie Smith, with his Tampa-2 approach. You simply can't even run a Tampa-2 without a kick ass MLB (like Lovie had with Urlacher)......which is one reason why Fewell doesn't run much Tampa-2....he doesn't have an MLB that can drop back 10-15 yards.

[fishgutmartyr]

 

You're probably right.

 

I think Belichick is a very rare coach, and as good of a head coach as he is, he was downright brilliant defensively. Two of the biggest "coaching" wins in Super Bowl history are a direct result of his ability to understand how to counter his opponent. The Buffalo Bills were loaded in 1990.....the Giants were an aging but smart team at that point. And against the St Louis Rams, the Patriots were totally outgunned.

 

Also, I don't think Reese values smart players as much as athletic players....I just think that's his bias.

 

 

To be fair, Belichick didn't exactly coach without talent--we're a far, far cry from the 1990 defense. It's a bit easier when you have arguably the best defender in history on the field, and excellent players in front and beside him. And that Patriots team didn't exactly lack quality on the defense, either.

 

I'm not defending Fewell--I think we should be getting more out of the players we have--but comparing our bunch with squads that had players like Taylor et al., Bruschi, and Law isn't really fair, either.

 

I'm not sure how complex Spag's defense was, either. Other than pulling DE's into coverage on certain blitzes (which was retarded anyway), I don't see how it was that complex.

[JMFP]

 

To be fair, Belichick didn't exactly coach without talent--we're a far, far cry from the 1990 defense. It's a bit easier when you have arguably the best defender in history on the field, and excellent players in front and beside him. And that Patriots team didn't exactly lack quality on the defense, either.

 

I'm not defending Fewell--I think we should be getting more out of the players we have--but comparing our bunch with squads that had players like Taylor et al., Bruschi, and Law isn't really fair, either.

 

I'm not sure how complex Spag's defense was, either. Other than pulling DE's into coverage on certain blitzes (which was retarded anyway), I don't see how it was that complex.

 

I agree with your comments. Plus, the game has changed alot since 1990 (for the worse, IMHO).

 

Regarding Spags....he had guys flying around, he gambled (and lost a bit), and he was unpredictable with who he sent on blitzes, and when......really wish we returned to that style.

 

Fewell is basically running a scheme that rewards patient offenses.....that's why Peyton Manning carved them up.

[Pizan]

I think our defensive turn around this season had more to do with the qbs we played then the actual play of our defense.

 

Fewell should have lost his job with glibride. We pride ourselves on pass rush and our team is loaded with pass rushers but yet we were at the bottom of the league in sacks.

[Mr. P]

I think our defensive turn around this season had more to do with the qbs we played then the actual play of our defense.

 

Fewell should have lost his job with glibride. We pride ourselves on pass rush and our team is loaded with pass rushers but yet we were at the bottom of the league in sacks.

 

is it though? it used to be.