Take a look at this article about Fewell on NJ.COM
Sources say that Fewell has been given a contract extension and will be Giants DC for two more years. I don't understand this move. I accept the fact that the Giants defense has played a little better the last two games, but they have had an entire season, in fact two seasons under Fewell of play that ranged from mediocre to poor. We all know that the Giants had a lot of defensive injuries this year, and I can certainly excuse them not being a top 5 defense in the league. But it is also certainly true that they underachieved based on their talent - they are definitely better than the lowest ranked defense and should have done more.
The interesting thing is that if the Giants add some defensive talent in next year's draft, they could have a powerful defense that even Fewell can't screw up. My thoughts around this are that: JPP will continue to excel and will be a dominant force in the league; Tuck will be over his current year injuries and, if he is healthy for the entire year will form the most formidable DE pair in the league; the young LBs that got experience this year will be strong contributors next year: Williams, Jones and Herzlich; but perhaps most of all, the DB-field will have a recovered Amukamara and the DL will have this year's 2nd rounder DL Austin to contribute. Too early to think about next year when we still have a playoff game in front of us. But I am simply puzzled, though not entirely surprised by this move, especially when Spagnuolo is available on the market.
Showing posts with label Giants coaches. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Giants coaches. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Giants - Eagles game review - II
You know the old adage: you're never as bad as you seem when you play poorly and never as good as you seem when you're playing great. So maybe the Giants aren't quite as bad as they looked against the Eagles last Sunday night, but I remain down on their prospects for the season. It is still a puzzle to me how they could have looked so awful against a 3-6 Eagles team and so good just 3 weeks before when they beat an excellent Patriots team. It just doesn't make sense unless you throw in the adage at the top of this post, which says "you're never as bad...."
But I think there's more to it than that and my friend and fellow Giants analyst Ray, may have had the simplest and best explanation for it. Giants have an average array of talent on this team - not great, not terrible. They clearly have some areas of strength and definitely have some flaws. That average-talent-team was propelled early beyond its actual status by extraordinary performance by the QB who has improved his accuracy, his decision making and is playing the best football of his career. A slightly softer early schedule helped also, but the Giants have not had a running game all year or a great defensive performance all year, so I am giving 80% of the credit where it belongs, to Eli. His superlative performance, especially in the 4th quarter may have masked the fact that the Giants are an average team.
Looking back again at the Eagles game, I spent the last post largely talking about how the OL got beat up by the Eagles DL, but in reality, the Giants DL did not do much better. Giants DL did a very good job stopping the run all night, holding McCoy down. But they got absolutely no pass rush, not even a little pressure and Young had all day to find an open receiver. Sometimes it comes down to one match-up and one position on the OL/DL battle and I think it did this week. When the DL has one position that dominates its opposite number, the OL has to change its blocking assignments, give help to the over-matched party and it gives free reign and better match-ups for the other players on the DL to get after the QB. Going back a generation, when LT was roaming at LB for the Giants, opposing offenses had to assign a 2nd or 3rd blocker to account for him and everyone else on the DL had a favorable match-up. If they could beat their man, there was no other help from the OL to stop them. Leonard Marshall, an effective but certainly not spectacular DE, made the pro bowl a few times playing along side of LT. After his pro bowls on the Giants elevated his status, he signed a good FA contract with the Jets, but was out of football in 2 years without LT attracting the attention of the opposing OL to make space for him. BUT the converse is also true - when an OL-man completely dominates the DL-man opposite him and can do it without any help at all, it frees up the other players on the OL to give help liberally to other OL players and plug any gaps that may exist. This is one of the things that happened Sunday night - Jason Peters was so completely dominant over Osi (and Tuck when he lined up there) that the Eagles could ignore that match-up and give help liberally elsewhere. Eagles had 4 against 3 at the other positions and when a TE or RB chipped or stayed in to help, they were 5 against 3 and did not have to sweat the Giants pass rush. The fact that the Giants were conscious of Young's escapability and rushed very conservatively, only staying in their lanes and rarely blitzing, gave Young even more time in the pocket. I don't udnerstand why Fewell didn't blitz like he did when Vick was back there, but Giants had absolutely no pass rush.
Now some good news: Amukamara looked very good. He was often stride for stride with his man and showed good make up speed on the INT, where he was beaten at first by Jackson but came back for the INT on a slightly underthrown ball. I was at the game, so I only heard the announcers now say that Amukamara was beaten and got very lucky on a badly underthrown ball. But I think they overstate the case, because the ball was about 60-65 yards in the air. How far can Young or any QB throw the ball? Amukamara came back and made a great catch on the ball. Other times when his man was not targeted by the pass, his coverage was excellent, something you would only see if you were at the game.
Herzlich got confused a few times on pass coverage, taking the short guy instead of the proper deep drop in his zone, but at other times his drops were perfect and he made several very good plays in the running game.
The problems the LBs have shown in defending the middle on crossing routes when playing a zone is a repeat problem. I am putting more of this on the coaching staff than on the players. Giants have not learned how to play zone defense in the entire Fewell reign.
Osi is great when the opposing LT stinks and awful when the opposing LT is decent. Kiwanuka is the most consistent and best Giants front 7 defensive player. When he is playing LB and has pass coverage responsibility against a WR (like he did on Smith TD) he is overmatched and should spend more of his time at DE. I would sit Osi, play Kiwanuka at DE and hope that the young LBs can figure it out.
By the way - Osi and Kiwanuka both have contracts that expire at the end of 2012. Assuming the Giants can not give a big extension to both players (Tuck is also up soon) I know where I would spend my money: Kiwanuka, and it's not even close. Trade Osi at the end of 2011 for as much as you can get in the draft, extend Kiwanuka and go from there.
But I think there's more to it than that and my friend and fellow Giants analyst Ray, may have had the simplest and best explanation for it. Giants have an average array of talent on this team - not great, not terrible. They clearly have some areas of strength and definitely have some flaws. That average-talent-team was propelled early beyond its actual status by extraordinary performance by the QB who has improved his accuracy, his decision making and is playing the best football of his career. A slightly softer early schedule helped also, but the Giants have not had a running game all year or a great defensive performance all year, so I am giving 80% of the credit where it belongs, to Eli. His superlative performance, especially in the 4th quarter may have masked the fact that the Giants are an average team.
Looking back again at the Eagles game, I spent the last post largely talking about how the OL got beat up by the Eagles DL, but in reality, the Giants DL did not do much better. Giants DL did a very good job stopping the run all night, holding McCoy down. But they got absolutely no pass rush, not even a little pressure and Young had all day to find an open receiver. Sometimes it comes down to one match-up and one position on the OL/DL battle and I think it did this week. When the DL has one position that dominates its opposite number, the OL has to change its blocking assignments, give help to the over-matched party and it gives free reign and better match-ups for the other players on the DL to get after the QB. Going back a generation, when LT was roaming at LB for the Giants, opposing offenses had to assign a 2nd or 3rd blocker to account for him and everyone else on the DL had a favorable match-up. If they could beat their man, there was no other help from the OL to stop them. Leonard Marshall, an effective but certainly not spectacular DE, made the pro bowl a few times playing along side of LT. After his pro bowls on the Giants elevated his status, he signed a good FA contract with the Jets, but was out of football in 2 years without LT attracting the attention of the opposing OL to make space for him. BUT the converse is also true - when an OL-man completely dominates the DL-man opposite him and can do it without any help at all, it frees up the other players on the OL to give help liberally to other OL players and plug any gaps that may exist. This is one of the things that happened Sunday night - Jason Peters was so completely dominant over Osi (and Tuck when he lined up there) that the Eagles could ignore that match-up and give help liberally elsewhere. Eagles had 4 against 3 at the other positions and when a TE or RB chipped or stayed in to help, they were 5 against 3 and did not have to sweat the Giants pass rush. The fact that the Giants were conscious of Young's escapability and rushed very conservatively, only staying in their lanes and rarely blitzing, gave Young even more time in the pocket. I don't udnerstand why Fewell didn't blitz like he did when Vick was back there, but Giants had absolutely no pass rush.
Now some good news: Amukamara looked very good. He was often stride for stride with his man and showed good make up speed on the INT, where he was beaten at first by Jackson but came back for the INT on a slightly underthrown ball. I was at the game, so I only heard the announcers now say that Amukamara was beaten and got very lucky on a badly underthrown ball. But I think they overstate the case, because the ball was about 60-65 yards in the air. How far can Young or any QB throw the ball? Amukamara came back and made a great catch on the ball. Other times when his man was not targeted by the pass, his coverage was excellent, something you would only see if you were at the game.
Herzlich got confused a few times on pass coverage, taking the short guy instead of the proper deep drop in his zone, but at other times his drops were perfect and he made several very good plays in the running game.
The problems the LBs have shown in defending the middle on crossing routes when playing a zone is a repeat problem. I am putting more of this on the coaching staff than on the players. Giants have not learned how to play zone defense in the entire Fewell reign.
Osi is great when the opposing LT stinks and awful when the opposing LT is decent. Kiwanuka is the most consistent and best Giants front 7 defensive player. When he is playing LB and has pass coverage responsibility against a WR (like he did on Smith TD) he is overmatched and should spend more of his time at DE. I would sit Osi, play Kiwanuka at DE and hope that the young LBs can figure it out.
By the way - Osi and Kiwanuka both have contracts that expire at the end of 2012. Assuming the Giants can not give a big extension to both players (Tuck is also up soon) I know where I would spend my money: Kiwanuka, and it's not even close. Trade Osi at the end of 2011 for as much as you can get in the draft, extend Kiwanuka and go from there.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Giants: The offense is too complex
You've been hearing me whining for months on this blog that a big reason for the offense's many turnovers and Eli's many INTs is the complexity of the passing routes. There are too many reads, adjustments, passing rules and route running variations made at the line of scrimmage pre-snap and even after the play starts if the defense covers up what they are doing and the pre-snap read is incorrect. This leads to indecision on the route to be run by the WR and leads the QB to hold on to the ball a beat longer to see what the WR will in fact do. That is why - when things go well and the WR runs the expected route, Eli's talents take over and he makes great throws completing 63% of his passes. But when there is hesitation and indecision, the QB waits to see where the WR will go and throws the ball flat footed with his arm only not stepping into the throw, which makes the ball sail or come off inaccurately. Think about it - it is completely illogical for a QB to throw a high percentage of completions AND have a lot of INTs; these stats should be directly correlated. If you are an inaccurate passer, toss the ball over the lot and throw a lot of INTs, your inaccurate passes should also lead to a bad completion percentage. Conversely, if you have a high percentage of completions because you are a good passer, you should have relatively lower INTs. There are certainly statistical anomalies that can affect this logic and other factors that could influence this, but as a general principle it is true.
Aside from the high INT rate, I assert that there is another proof for the overly-complex passing offense and that is the length of time it takes for a new WR to get inducted into the offense. There are lots of examples - it took Barden a year and a half before he could get on the field. Manningham was idle his first year. Rookie Calhoun made the team this year and was a ST player, but could not be promoted to the offensive system when there were injuries, the Giants had to re-sign Derek hagan who had previously been in the offense for a year and was familiar with it. Clayton joined the team as an emergency fill in and while he may not be a star, he was a former first round draft choice with a resume of decent performance at the NFL level and also was completely unproductive in this offense.
By contrast, the Chargers had a ton of injuries at the WR and TE position and kept rolling new guys in and out of their offense. Each one was productive almost immediately and Rivers and the Chargers offense hardly missed a beat. This is because Norv Turner's offense is elegant in its simplicity and easy to learn. This simple design doesn't cost them anything in efficiency or productivity, because the Chargers offense was near the top all year long.
After all these hints and clues to my assertion, I heard the coup de gras, the ultimate word this morning. While in my car, listening to morning sports talk radio, Boomer Esiaison said the exact same thing when explaining Gilbride's offense and Manning's high INT rate. He said that if Eli were playing in a better designed offense, where both the WR and the QB could be more decisive about the routes, and aware of what the other was going to do, Eli would be at the top of the league. He spoke specifically about the Colts, Patriots and the Chargers offense as examples of QB friendly passing schemes.
I do computer work and design systems. When you're confronted with a problem, the hardest thing to do is to design a simple, elegant solution that solves all your needs. Somewhat paradoxically, it's easier to build a complex system that staisifies every requriement, by piling one Rube Goldberg trap onto another, but hard to have the vision to design something simple. Simplicity is elegance.
Gilbride is apparently being considered for HC of the UCONN Huskies football team. All you UCONN alum - send a strong letter of recommendation to your alma mater to go and hire Gilbride as the next HC of your football team. Maybe then we can get a smart, open minded OC to redesign the passing offense. Josh McDaniels is unlikely to get a HC offer after the mess he made as HC in Denver. We'll take him.
Aside from the high INT rate, I assert that there is another proof for the overly-complex passing offense and that is the length of time it takes for a new WR to get inducted into the offense. There are lots of examples - it took Barden a year and a half before he could get on the field. Manningham was idle his first year. Rookie Calhoun made the team this year and was a ST player, but could not be promoted to the offensive system when there were injuries, the Giants had to re-sign Derek hagan who had previously been in the offense for a year and was familiar with it. Clayton joined the team as an emergency fill in and while he may not be a star, he was a former first round draft choice with a resume of decent performance at the NFL level and also was completely unproductive in this offense.
By contrast, the Chargers had a ton of injuries at the WR and TE position and kept rolling new guys in and out of their offense. Each one was productive almost immediately and Rivers and the Chargers offense hardly missed a beat. This is because Norv Turner's offense is elegant in its simplicity and easy to learn. This simple design doesn't cost them anything in efficiency or productivity, because the Chargers offense was near the top all year long.
After all these hints and clues to my assertion, I heard the coup de gras, the ultimate word this morning. While in my car, listening to morning sports talk radio, Boomer Esiaison said the exact same thing when explaining Gilbride's offense and Manning's high INT rate. He said that if Eli were playing in a better designed offense, where both the WR and the QB could be more decisive about the routes, and aware of what the other was going to do, Eli would be at the top of the league. He spoke specifically about the Colts, Patriots and the Chargers offense as examples of QB friendly passing schemes.
I do computer work and design systems. When you're confronted with a problem, the hardest thing to do is to design a simple, elegant solution that solves all your needs. Somewhat paradoxically, it's easier to build a complex system that staisifies every requriement, by piling one Rube Goldberg trap onto another, but hard to have the vision to design something simple. Simplicity is elegance.
Gilbride is apparently being considered for HC of the UCONN Huskies football team. All you UCONN alum - send a strong letter of recommendation to your alma mater to go and hire Gilbride as the next HC of your football team. Maybe then we can get a smart, open minded OC to redesign the passing offense. Josh McDaniels is unlikely to get a HC offer after the mess he made as HC in Denver. We'll take him.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Giants: about Coughlin
Tom Coughlin rallied the Giants to a Superbowl in 2007 when he had one foot nearly out the door following a weak 2006 season. Giants made the playoffs that year, but all was not right in Giants land and the state of the franchise seemed to be uneven. The Giants had a worse year in 2006 than they did the previous year, going 8-8 after a record of 11-5 in 2005 (which ended with that horrible 23-0 playoff loss to the Panthers). In 2006, they went out in the first round of the playoffs against the hated rival Eagles and even though the game was tied late in the 4th quarter, you never really had the feeling that the Giants could win that game. The advancement of the franchise QB was a bit choppy. The relationship between the players and the coaches was contentious, and that goes for all of the coaches, not just the head coach. The DC, Tim Lewis, was broadly disliked by the players and he did not get a lot out of them; did not coach and get them to develop their skills. The OC Hufnagel was unimaginative and was relieved of his duties late in the year. A team with a lot of uncertainty and almost dysfunction is what the Giants owners were looking at after the 2006 season in deciding the fate of HC Coughlin. They were this close to sending him packing, but he promised to change his ways and they gave him one more chance. So Coughlin became a bit more of a player's coach, communicated with the players more effectively and although he remained firm, he did not use yelling, scolding and screaming as his only means of coaching the players. He also fired the DC, Tim Lewis, installed Gilbride as OC and hired a new QB coach, Chris Palmer. The team responded to all the changes, went on one of the great playoff rolls in sports and beat the favored Patriots for the title in one of the greatest upsets in Super Bowl history. Coughlin was hailed as a brilliant coach and when he followed it up with another great year in 2008, which was unfortunately disrupted by the Plaxico Burress gun incident, and ended with a playoff loss to the Eagles, he was widely viewed as one of the top coaches in the NFL. I would like to take a look at Coughlin now, a few years removed from that unlikely 2007 title and analyze his strengths and weaknesses as a coach.
Whenever we analyze the top coaches and examine their legacy to the sport, we always talk about "the coaching tree" that they planted. The great coaches leave not only championships and playoff wins in their resume but also a cadre of assistant coaches that become successful either as coordinators in other programs or as HCs themselves. For example, Bill Walsh had on his staff future head coaches like: Mike Holmgren, George Seifert, Dennis Green, Sam Wyche and Jim Fassel. Just going through this in my head, without looking it up, I think this group had two Superbowl wins (Holmgren and Seifert), two other Superbowl appearances (Fassel, Wyche) and some very successful season by Dennis Green up in Minnesota. These coaches themselves spawned other successful coaches including John Gruden, Mike Shanahan, Steve Mariucci, Andy Reid and some others. Therefore, I would argue that the most important job a HC has is picking and training his assistants. Parcells had Bellichick, Crennel, Weiss, Coughlin himself and even had Sean Payton down in Dallas after he left the Giants. Parcells was great at picking talented coaches and did a masterful job training them in his philosophy once he got them. I never loved Jim Fassel as a coach, but give him credit in picking his coordinators: two coaches that went on to great success as HC in the league: John Fox and Sean Payton who now have two Superbowl appearances and one title between them.
If you look at Coughlin's record on the Giants at picking assistants, his record is definitely spotty. He picked Tim Lewis as his first DC, Hufnagel as his first OC and both were complete washouts. As I said, Hufnagel was stripped of his duties before year end and Lewis was fired at the end of the year after poor results and a virtual player revolt. Coughlin also took Gilbride as his first QB coach and Manning did not improve his mechanics or his play at all under Gilbride - he blossomed when Palmer came in to be QB coach. Gilbride got shifted to OC and to be fair, his performance can probably be termed competent, though certainly he is not the most imaginative offensive mind in the NFL. Give Coughlin credit for finding Spagnuolo who did a great job following Lewis, but when Spags left for the Rams, Couglin promoted from within and named Sheridan who also was a total bust. Some of the position coaches are pretty good. Flaherty, the OL coach is one of the best in the NFL and I also like Giunta and Merrit, the S and DB coaches. But he certainly does not have a great record picking assistants. Sometimes assistant coaches can get off to a bad start, not have a good fit with the team or players but then excel elsewhere in the NFL. For example, Sean Payton was bumped by Fassel and went on to success. However, Lewis and Hufnagel are out of the NFL now and Sheridan, after being DC with the Giants was hired as an assistant LB coach with the Dolphins. Hear that??? not LB coach, but assistant LB coach. Obviously, he is not exactly highly regarded among his peers.
I also get the feeling that Coughlin is completely hands-off, to a fault, with his assistants when it comes to their game planning. Just like in business, where a manager of managers has to find the right level of involvement to influence direction but not interfere, the HC has to have input to personnel decisions and game planning while not undermining the chain of command and the authority of his assistants. Last year, when Sheridan was clearly floundering with his schemes and his play calls, Coughlin did not step in and guide or suggest ways to improve things. Sheridan leaked to the press that the Giants defense was not physical and there was nothing he could do. Terrible thing for a coach to do - to throw his players under the bus like that - they certainly are not going to be motivated to play for him then. Players were freelancing because they did not trust the play calls which led to more breakdowns and missed assignments. Sheridan's response was to yell more, to become more removed and distant, and to simplify things even more, as if the blown assignments were because the defenses were too confusing. The players were unhappy, but Coughlin did not step in to guide first time DC Sheridan in how to ameliorate the situation. He let him sink and fired him summarily at the end of the year. This did not reflect well on Coughlin.
That having been said, the NFL is a results oriented league and Coughlin's results have been good. He took over a 4-12 team in 2004 with a rookie QB. If you exclude that first year, where he was remaking the roster and training his rookie qb, he made the playoffs 4 out of the next 5 years, with one title to his credit. He trained that QB into a franchise player and is set up with a pretty good team in 2010. This is a big year for Coughlin. If he fails badly with this talent, his future tenure may be questioned.
If you look at Coughlin's record on the Giants at picking assistants, his record is definitely spotty. He picked Tim Lewis as his first DC, Hufnagel as his first OC and both were complete washouts. As I said, Hufnagel was stripped of his duties before year end and Lewis was fired at the end of the year after poor results and a virtual player revolt. Coughlin also took Gilbride as his first QB coach and Manning did not improve his mechanics or his play at all under Gilbride - he blossomed when Palmer came in to be QB coach. Gilbride got shifted to OC and to be fair, his performance can probably be termed competent, though certainly he is not the most imaginative offensive mind in the NFL. Give Coughlin credit for finding Spagnuolo who did a great job following Lewis, but when Spags left for the Rams, Couglin promoted from within and named Sheridan who also was a total bust. Some of the position coaches are pretty good. Flaherty, the OL coach is one of the best in the NFL and I also like Giunta and Merrit, the S and DB coaches. But he certainly does not have a great record picking assistants. Sometimes assistant coaches can get off to a bad start, not have a good fit with the team or players but then excel elsewhere in the NFL. For example, Sean Payton was bumped by Fassel and went on to success. However, Lewis and Hufnagel are out of the NFL now and Sheridan, after being DC with the Giants was hired as an assistant LB coach with the Dolphins. Hear that??? not LB coach, but assistant LB coach. Obviously, he is not exactly highly regarded among his peers.
I also get the feeling that Coughlin is completely hands-off, to a fault, with his assistants when it comes to their game planning. Just like in business, where a manager of managers has to find the right level of involvement to influence direction but not interfere, the HC has to have input to personnel decisions and game planning while not undermining the chain of command and the authority of his assistants. Last year, when Sheridan was clearly floundering with his schemes and his play calls, Coughlin did not step in and guide or suggest ways to improve things. Sheridan leaked to the press that the Giants defense was not physical and there was nothing he could do. Terrible thing for a coach to do - to throw his players under the bus like that - they certainly are not going to be motivated to play for him then. Players were freelancing because they did not trust the play calls which led to more breakdowns and missed assignments. Sheridan's response was to yell more, to become more removed and distant, and to simplify things even more, as if the blown assignments were because the defenses were too confusing. The players were unhappy, but Coughlin did not step in to guide first time DC Sheridan in how to ameliorate the situation. He let him sink and fired him summarily at the end of the year. This did not reflect well on Coughlin.
That having been said, the NFL is a results oriented league and Coughlin's results have been good. He took over a 4-12 team in 2004 with a rookie QB. If you exclude that first year, where he was remaking the roster and training his rookie qb, he made the playoffs 4 out of the next 5 years, with one title to his credit. He trained that QB into a franchise player and is set up with a pretty good team in 2010. This is a big year for Coughlin. If he fails badly with this talent, his future tenure may be questioned.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Giants: Coaching moves
There is some not-great news to report on the Giants coaching front. Chris Palmer has left the Giants to become the head coach of the New York Sentinel of the United Football League. As an aside, I think they play in Hartford and it's a bit of a stretch to call them "New York" Sentinel. I mean - the Giants play in NJ, but at least it's considered part of the Metropolitan area and is spitting distance from midtown Manhattan. Hartford is probably 120-125 miles away (I am sure someone will google-map it and find that I'm wrong about the mileage, but you get the point... it's not part of the NY metropolitan area.)
There are two pieces of bad news associated with Chris Palmer leaving. First - Palmer did an excellent coaching Eli since he joined in 2007. His credentials as a coach are excellent: he was an assistant to Parcells in New England and Dallas. As well, he coached for Coughlin in Jacksonville before rejoining Coughlin in he current tenure with the Giants. Palmer fixed Eli's mechanics, taught him how to go through his progressions more quickly, how to be a more accurate passer and how to be more secure with the ball without sacrificing the boldness required to try and make plays down the field. Eli has become a different qb under Palmer that he was when Gilbride was qb coach. Palmer had the longing to become an OC again - he was not happy being stuck as a qb coach. He was hanging around with the Giants hoping that Gilbride would leave and become a HC somewhere (Oakland?). The Giants were not going to fire Gilbride because he still has a year left on his contract. When it became apparent that Gilbride was staying, Palmer first retired and then was wooed by the Sentinel job a few days later.
Like I said, there are two pieces of bad news in this move: (1) Palmer is leaving. (2) All indications are that Gilbride is staying. I waver from week to week as to whether Gilbride is an awful coach or just mediocre. But here's the thing: even if you think that he is mediocre - you can certainly ask yourself why the NY Giants, with an investment of $100 million in a qb, with excellent WRs and a potentially big-time, productive offense should mute its development and its productivity by saddling it with a mediocre (at best) OC.
There are two pieces of bad news associated with Chris Palmer leaving. First - Palmer did an excellent coaching Eli since he joined in 2007. His credentials as a coach are excellent: he was an assistant to Parcells in New England and Dallas. As well, he coached for Coughlin in Jacksonville before rejoining Coughlin in he current tenure with the Giants. Palmer fixed Eli's mechanics, taught him how to go through his progressions more quickly, how to be a more accurate passer and how to be more secure with the ball without sacrificing the boldness required to try and make plays down the field. Eli has become a different qb under Palmer that he was when Gilbride was qb coach. Palmer had the longing to become an OC again - he was not happy being stuck as a qb coach. He was hanging around with the Giants hoping that Gilbride would leave and become a HC somewhere (Oakland?). The Giants were not going to fire Gilbride because he still has a year left on his contract. When it became apparent that Gilbride was staying, Palmer first retired and then was wooed by the Sentinel job a few days later.
Like I said, there are two pieces of bad news in this move: (1) Palmer is leaving. (2) All indications are that Gilbride is staying. I waver from week to week as to whether Gilbride is an awful coach or just mediocre. But here's the thing: even if you think that he is mediocre - you can certainly ask yourself why the NY Giants, with an investment of $100 million in a qb, with excellent WRs and a potentially big-time, productive offense should mute its development and its productivity by saddling it with a mediocre (at best) OC.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Giants: Lessons learned from the playoffs
What follows are some random observations from the playoffs and from the Giants performance of the past year.
In the modern era of passing dominated football, you still need to have balance in your offense. You need to have a solid OL that gives the qb time to throw. You need a sound running game, to keep the defense off balance and not to allow them to defend a one-dimensional offense. In the passing game itself, you need variety in your stable of weapons. By that I mean that not only do you need good WRs, you need WR of different types - speed guys that can go deep as well as players that can catch the ball in traffic and make a play after they catch the ball. But it's more than that - you don't just need a TE, you need one that is a threat to make a play down the field and you need RB's that are threats with speed out of the backfield, to make a big play in the running game and to augment the passing game. Look at some of the teams that are successful in this year's playoffs - Vikings have a good set of WRs led by Rice as the deep threat and a play maker in Harvin but they also have Shiancoe at TE who has blossomed as a real good threat and of course have Adrian Peterson at RB who is a threat to go all the way every time he touches the ball. Saints have Colston/Shockey/Bush. Colts have a variety of weapons at WR complimented by Clark at TE and Addai at RB who are dynamic weapons. Chargers have great WRs with Gates and Sproles who are dynamic threats. The Cowboys WRs are not great, but their offense started to hum when Austin stepped up and made some plays, becasue they have a playmaker Whitten at TE and Felix Jones is a speed burner at RB. By contrast, the Eagles are a one dimensional offense, relying only on the big play from their WRs. Of course this was enough to toast the Giants pathetic defense this year, but not good enough to do anything against a strong defense like the Cowboys. Even the Jets, who do not have a big time offense started to do better when Braylon Edwards actually caught the ball, when TE Dustin Keller made some plays and Shon Greene broke some runs from the RB position. I am not analyzing every team that made the playoffs, some had a slightly different makeup. But it's clear that the Giants need to get more dynamic and varied weapons on offense. You have to be very happy with the collection of young WRs that the Giants have and the qb that is getting them the ball. But this past year, that was the only component that the Giants had of the variety that is needed to have a powerful offense. Specifically, the OL took a step backwards and was mediocre this year, not opening up big holes in the running game and offering only moderate protection for the passing game. The running game was average, with Jacobs being subpar as the power-grind-it-out RB and Bradshaw mediocre as the speed back. Furthermore, neither was a threat in the passing game. Boss is a solid player, but is not a dangerous threat in the passing game. In retrospect, with so many components missing from the offense, it's a tremendous credit to Eli and the WRs that with such limited weapons on offense, they were able be as effective as they were and win as many games as they did. (Thanks to my buddy Ray who sent me an email that motivated me to analyze the offense this way.)
With this background, it's easy to see what needs to be fixed on the offense: a great OL-man, a real play maker at RB with great speed and an an upgrade at TE. On the OL, I am assuming that Beatty will move into a starting role this year, but I would like to see one more position upgraded. With Diehl able to move around to G or T, there is a fair amount of flexibility and it almost does not matter what position on the OL gets upgraded.
Defense is interesting also. I have posted before about how important team speed is on defense and how lacking it was for the Giants in the DB-field; how the Giants need to upgrade the LBs; and how they need to get tougher in the DL. But that is somewhat simplistic - football 101 - you need speed and size on defense. What I want to stress is that it is more important than ever to have speed and athleticism in the back 7 than it used to be. With the emphasis on the passing game and with the successful offenses putting pressure on the LBs and safeties with their TEs and RBs (see paragraph 1 of this post), this is a critical need.
There is one other observation I would like to make and it came from watching the Jets defense in the playoffs and from watching a DVD of the Giants-Steelers regular season game from 2008 (when Spagnuolo was still DC), which I did over the weekend. I was whining all season long about how creative the Jets defense was compared to the Giants, how their blitz package was so unusual and how they used their players so effectively. The Jets used DBs as blitzers very often. They would load up with 6 (or sometimes 7) DBs on the field in passing situation, and use them as blitzers, often having two overload one side and come from the edge. They would also occasionally have a LB coming between the T and G on the same side of the field as these edge DB blitzers or straight up the middle. This scheme relies on speed of DBs to get to the qb and with 6 or 7 DBs on the field, you still have some DBs back, able to cover. This was much more effective that the zone blitzes the Giants relied on as a staple, because the Giants would have a DE trying to run in coverage to guard the hot receiver instead of a DB. Th Jets scheme was effective, but I have to say that it is somewhat gimmicky. They had to do this because they did not have an effective pass rush from the DL. You saw what Peyton Manning did to this blitz package in the playoff game - if you block it, you can burn them. Of course, that is the best qb in football burning that defensive scheme, so it may not be as easy it seems. A baseball metaphor would be like analyzing how to get a certain hitter out... advance scout or pitching coach advises the pitcher: Mariano Rivera got him out with cutters. Notwithstanding how effective and creative this scheme may have been, in truth, the Giants were probably not equipped to use these kinds of blitzes this year for several reasons. They did not have the personnel to do it - they did not have enough fast DBs who could get to the qb in time. Mostly though, this scheme, with blitzing DBs puts an enormous amount of pressure on the S to cover man-to-man and the Giants safeties this year were thoroughly incapable of doing so. It exposes the safeties to cover and the Giants safeties were barely able to run up and down the field, much less cover a dangerous WR man to man. This brings me to the Steelers game I watched from 2008, which lends further substance to my assertion. Perhaps you remember the game - Giants were stopped at the Steelers goal line several times in the first half and were leading 9-7 at half time. In the second half, Big Ben hit one long pass play when James Butler looked absolutely stupid trying to cover a WR and Giants were down 14-9 going into the 4th qtr. Eli moved them down for a FG making the score 14-12, and the Giants defense stopped the Steelers, getting a sack to force them to punt from their own 15. The snap was bad, over the punters head, and Giants got a safety to tie the game. After that, Eli took the Giants in for a TD to win 21-14. The point is that the Giants used lots of creative CB blitzes in that game and completely confused the Steelers. They had CBs coming from the edge and LBs occasionally coming up the middle. Several times this forced S Phillips into 1-on-1 coverage and each time he handled the situation perfectly, either making the tackle in the open field, breaking up the pass play, forcing a bad throw that led to an INT and one time making an INT himself. Pierce was still able to run then and Kehl was playing LB, so the Giants even had some speed and athleticism on the field from the LBs. Perhaps the predictability this year on defense was not all Sheridan's fault. The Giants DB-field had terrible S play and did not have enough quality, fast players at CB to do anything much more creative than they did. Furthermore, with Pierce slowing down and Boley out and injured much of the year, the LBs were simply not able to help in these schemes.
I am not saying that Sheridan should have been retained, I am just saying that his hands may have been tied by the personnel limitations on the team. The Giants were thin in the DB-field to start the year. When Phillips and Ross went out and when Dockery's play slipped, it was difficult to dial up creative blitzes and defense. Add to that the decline of the LBs and the injuries in the DL and it's not hard to understand why the defense slipped as badly as it did.
In the modern era of passing dominated football, you still need to have balance in your offense. You need to have a solid OL that gives the qb time to throw. You need a sound running game, to keep the defense off balance and not to allow them to defend a one-dimensional offense. In the passing game itself, you need variety in your stable of weapons. By that I mean that not only do you need good WRs, you need WR of different types - speed guys that can go deep as well as players that can catch the ball in traffic and make a play after they catch the ball. But it's more than that - you don't just need a TE, you need one that is a threat to make a play down the field and you need RB's that are threats with speed out of the backfield, to make a big play in the running game and to augment the passing game. Look at some of the teams that are successful in this year's playoffs - Vikings have a good set of WRs led by Rice as the deep threat and a play maker in Harvin but they also have Shiancoe at TE who has blossomed as a real good threat and of course have Adrian Peterson at RB who is a threat to go all the way every time he touches the ball. Saints have Colston/Shockey/Bush. Colts have a variety of weapons at WR complimented by Clark at TE and Addai at RB who are dynamic weapons. Chargers have great WRs with Gates and Sproles who are dynamic threats. The Cowboys WRs are not great, but their offense started to hum when Austin stepped up and made some plays, becasue they have a playmaker Whitten at TE and Felix Jones is a speed burner at RB. By contrast, the Eagles are a one dimensional offense, relying only on the big play from their WRs. Of course this was enough to toast the Giants pathetic defense this year, but not good enough to do anything against a strong defense like the Cowboys. Even the Jets, who do not have a big time offense started to do better when Braylon Edwards actually caught the ball, when TE Dustin Keller made some plays and Shon Greene broke some runs from the RB position. I am not analyzing every team that made the playoffs, some had a slightly different makeup. But it's clear that the Giants need to get more dynamic and varied weapons on offense. You have to be very happy with the collection of young WRs that the Giants have and the qb that is getting them the ball. But this past year, that was the only component that the Giants had of the variety that is needed to have a powerful offense. Specifically, the OL took a step backwards and was mediocre this year, not opening up big holes in the running game and offering only moderate protection for the passing game. The running game was average, with Jacobs being subpar as the power-grind-it-out RB and Bradshaw mediocre as the speed back. Furthermore, neither was a threat in the passing game. Boss is a solid player, but is not a dangerous threat in the passing game. In retrospect, with so many components missing from the offense, it's a tremendous credit to Eli and the WRs that with such limited weapons on offense, they were able be as effective as they were and win as many games as they did. (Thanks to my buddy Ray who sent me an email that motivated me to analyze the offense this way.)
With this background, it's easy to see what needs to be fixed on the offense: a great OL-man, a real play maker at RB with great speed and an an upgrade at TE. On the OL, I am assuming that Beatty will move into a starting role this year, but I would like to see one more position upgraded. With Diehl able to move around to G or T, there is a fair amount of flexibility and it almost does not matter what position on the OL gets upgraded.
Defense is interesting also. I have posted before about how important team speed is on defense and how lacking it was for the Giants in the DB-field; how the Giants need to upgrade the LBs; and how they need to get tougher in the DL. But that is somewhat simplistic - football 101 - you need speed and size on defense. What I want to stress is that it is more important than ever to have speed and athleticism in the back 7 than it used to be. With the emphasis on the passing game and with the successful offenses putting pressure on the LBs and safeties with their TEs and RBs (see paragraph 1 of this post), this is a critical need.
There is one other observation I would like to make and it came from watching the Jets defense in the playoffs and from watching a DVD of the Giants-Steelers regular season game from 2008 (when Spagnuolo was still DC), which I did over the weekend. I was whining all season long about how creative the Jets defense was compared to the Giants, how their blitz package was so unusual and how they used their players so effectively. The Jets used DBs as blitzers very often. They would load up with 6 (or sometimes 7) DBs on the field in passing situation, and use them as blitzers, often having two overload one side and come from the edge. They would also occasionally have a LB coming between the T and G on the same side of the field as these edge DB blitzers or straight up the middle. This scheme relies on speed of DBs to get to the qb and with 6 or 7 DBs on the field, you still have some DBs back, able to cover. This was much more effective that the zone blitzes the Giants relied on as a staple, because the Giants would have a DE trying to run in coverage to guard the hot receiver instead of a DB. Th Jets scheme was effective, but I have to say that it is somewhat gimmicky. They had to do this because they did not have an effective pass rush from the DL. You saw what Peyton Manning did to this blitz package in the playoff game - if you block it, you can burn them. Of course, that is the best qb in football burning that defensive scheme, so it may not be as easy it seems. A baseball metaphor would be like analyzing how to get a certain hitter out... advance scout or pitching coach advises the pitcher: Mariano Rivera got him out with cutters. Notwithstanding how effective and creative this scheme may have been, in truth, the Giants were probably not equipped to use these kinds of blitzes this year for several reasons. They did not have the personnel to do it - they did not have enough fast DBs who could get to the qb in time. Mostly though, this scheme, with blitzing DBs puts an enormous amount of pressure on the S to cover man-to-man and the Giants safeties this year were thoroughly incapable of doing so. It exposes the safeties to cover and the Giants safeties were barely able to run up and down the field, much less cover a dangerous WR man to man. This brings me to the Steelers game I watched from 2008, which lends further substance to my assertion. Perhaps you remember the game - Giants were stopped at the Steelers goal line several times in the first half and were leading 9-7 at half time. In the second half, Big Ben hit one long pass play when James Butler looked absolutely stupid trying to cover a WR and Giants were down 14-9 going into the 4th qtr. Eli moved them down for a FG making the score 14-12, and the Giants defense stopped the Steelers, getting a sack to force them to punt from their own 15. The snap was bad, over the punters head, and Giants got a safety to tie the game. After that, Eli took the Giants in for a TD to win 21-14. The point is that the Giants used lots of creative CB blitzes in that game and completely confused the Steelers. They had CBs coming from the edge and LBs occasionally coming up the middle. Several times this forced S Phillips into 1-on-1 coverage and each time he handled the situation perfectly, either making the tackle in the open field, breaking up the pass play, forcing a bad throw that led to an INT and one time making an INT himself. Pierce was still able to run then and Kehl was playing LB, so the Giants even had some speed and athleticism on the field from the LBs. Perhaps the predictability this year on defense was not all Sheridan's fault. The Giants DB-field had terrible S play and did not have enough quality, fast players at CB to do anything much more creative than they did. Furthermore, with Pierce slowing down and Boley out and injured much of the year, the LBs were simply not able to help in these schemes.
I am not saying that Sheridan should have been retained, I am just saying that his hands may have been tied by the personnel limitations on the team. The Giants were thin in the DB-field to start the year. When Phillips and Ross went out and when Dockery's play slipped, it was difficult to dial up creative blitzes and defense. Add to that the decline of the LBs and the injuries in the DL and it's not hard to understand why the defense slipped as badly as it did.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Giants: Off season musings
Sheridan
It sure looks like Bill Sheridan's career has come down to earth after a recent, sudden rise. The Dolphins announced that they hired Sheridan as their Inside Line Backers coach. That's quite a step back from his job as DC with the Giants. The Dolphins are looking for a DC after firing Paul Pasqualoni and apparently Sheridan was not considered for the DC position. He wasn't even taken as the LB coach, but only the Inside LB coach. Retrospectively, we can probably assert that this was a terrible hire by Coughlin a year ago. First, Sheridan's job as DC with the Giants was the only time in his career that he ever had a job as high as coordinator and he did it in his first stint in the NFL, with the Giants being his first trip to the pros. Sheridan's career resume looks like this:
Sheridan was a college position coach for 18 years, from 1987 through 2004, never with one of the dominant national programs like Alabama, USC etc. He joined the Giants first as LB coach in 2005, two years before Spagnuolo came to revive the defense. He was LB coach for 2 years before Spagnuolo arrived and served without particular distinction. When Spagnuolo arrived and revived the entire defense, Sheridan was probably riding his coat tails and had his LB's play well because of the overall improvement of the defense. He then ascended to DC in 2009 with disastrous results. By contrast, Spagnuolo's apprenticeship began in 1984. He was defensive position coach and also defensive coordinator in several college programs. He served also as defensive coordinator for a few years in NFL Europe and in one year managed to coach 9 of his 11 starters on the Frankfurt Galaxy to graduate from Europe to jobs in the NFL. After fifteen years of experience coaching he returned to the NFL in 1999 as LB coach under Jim Johnson of the Eagles and served for 4 years as the DB coach and then 4 more as LB coach. His resume and seasoning was complete. I am not saying that the only way to become a DC in the NFL is to be a coaching lifer with 20 years of experience coaching, some at the DC level and a good portion of it in the NFL. But it sure helps.
Look at the Jim Zorn experience in Washington - he had never been a coordinator at any level in his coaching career and was hired to make a big step from QB coach to OC. Before serving as a day as OC, he made the double jump directly to HC. How did that work out for him? There's no substitute for experience.
A second look back at the Giants offense of 2009
My friend Ray sent me an email and made some excellent points about the Giants offensive
performance this past year. I have copy and pasted the mail below:
Some very good observations, as always from Ray. Ray also says that, as much as we like Kevin Boss, the Giants could use a bigger playmaker at that position. I agree. I am also eager to see more speed and playmaking from the RB position. Even if Jacobs comes back, he has never shown that he is a threat to catch passes out of the backfield, notwithstanding the one 70 yard run that he made against the Cowboys late in the year. Bradshaw was hurt all year also, but I am not confident that he has the pure breakaway speed that you need at the position. Giants need to upgrade the speed and pass catching ability at the RB position. Giants should also do something to upgrade the OL - either at T or at LG or both. They have to get younger and more athletic.
The risk is that the Giants will sit tight and presume that the injuries are the cause of the 8-8 performance this year, but I am fairly confident that Reese will avoid that trap. Remember Reese's action in the first year he took over - he got rid of a bunch of aging players that were often hurt: Pettigout, Arrington, Emmons, Demp and a few others I can't recall right now. His philosophy is that injuries are part of the game and have to be managed as part of the personnel evaluations. When a player ages and starts to get injured, the pace of continuing injuries usually increases and simply has to be considered, as cruel and cold as that seems. I expect Reese to do the same surgery this year as he did in his first year with at least some of the aging veterans that were injured this year, including: Pierce, MacKenzie, Robbins and Seubert.
It sure looks like Bill Sheridan's career has come down to earth after a recent, sudden rise. The Dolphins announced that they hired Sheridan as their Inside Line Backers coach. That's quite a step back from his job as DC with the Giants. The Dolphins are looking for a DC after firing Paul Pasqualoni and apparently Sheridan was not considered for the DC position. He wasn't even taken as the LB coach, but only the Inside LB coach. Retrospectively, we can probably assert that this was a terrible hire by Coughlin a year ago. First, Sheridan's job as DC with the Giants was the only time in his career that he ever had a job as high as coordinator and he did it in his first stint in the NFL, with the Giants being his first trip to the pros. Sheridan's career resume looks like this:
 Bill SheridanBorn: January 27, 1959, Detroit High school: De La Salle, Detroit College: Played LB at Grand Valley State Coaching career: |
|---|
| 1985-86: University of Michigan - Graduate Assistant |
| 1987-88: University of Maine - Linebackers Coach |
| 1989-91: University of Cincinnati - Linebackers Coach |
| 1992-97: Army - Linebackers Coach (1992-95), Defensive Backs Coach (1996-97) |
| 1998-00: Michigan State University - Linebackers Coach |
| 2001: University of Notre Dame - Safeties, Special Teams Coach |
| 2002-04: University of Michigan - Linebackers Coach (2002), Defensive Line Coach (2003-04) |
| 2005-09: New York Giants - Linebackers Coach (2005-08), Defensive Coordinator (2009) |
| 2010: Miami Dolphins - Inside Linebackers Coach |
Sheridan was a college position coach for 18 years, from 1987 through 2004, never with one of the dominant national programs like Alabama, USC etc. He joined the Giants first as LB coach in 2005, two years before Spagnuolo came to revive the defense. He was LB coach for 2 years before Spagnuolo arrived and served without particular distinction. When Spagnuolo arrived and revived the entire defense, Sheridan was probably riding his coat tails and had his LB's play well because of the overall improvement of the defense. He then ascended to DC in 2009 with disastrous results. By contrast, Spagnuolo's apprenticeship began in 1984. He was defensive position coach and also defensive coordinator in several college programs. He served also as defensive coordinator for a few years in NFL Europe and in one year managed to coach 9 of his 11 starters on the Frankfurt Galaxy to graduate from Europe to jobs in the NFL. After fifteen years of experience coaching he returned to the NFL in 1999 as LB coach under Jim Johnson of the Eagles and served for 4 years as the DB coach and then 4 more as LB coach. His resume and seasoning was complete. I am not saying that the only way to become a DC in the NFL is to be a coaching lifer with 20 years of experience coaching, some at the DC level and a good portion of it in the NFL. But it sure helps.
Look at the Jim Zorn experience in Washington - he had never been a coordinator at any level in his coaching career and was hired to make a big step from QB coach to OC. Before serving as a day as OC, he made the double jump directly to HC. How did that work out for him? There's no substitute for experience.
A second look back at the Giants offense of 2009
My friend Ray sent me an email and made some excellent points about the Giants offensive
performance this past year. I have copy and pasted the mail below:
Offensively, the Giants executed a huge disinformation project all year long. For most of the year, they hid the fact that Jacobs, Seubert and Hedgecock were all significantly hurt. Hence, week after week, Coughlin preached running the ball, and Jacobs promised that he would get 100 yards next week, but, in fact, the only game plan they had available to them was to have Eli throw, which, week after week, they did. It is a credit to Eli and the receivers that the offense scored as any points as it did – enough to win several games at least. And one can hope that, if those three players come back to form (a big if, I admit), the offense will be OK.
Some very good observations, as always from Ray. Ray also says that, as much as we like Kevin Boss, the Giants could use a bigger playmaker at that position. I agree. I am also eager to see more speed and playmaking from the RB position. Even if Jacobs comes back, he has never shown that he is a threat to catch passes out of the backfield, notwithstanding the one 70 yard run that he made against the Cowboys late in the year. Bradshaw was hurt all year also, but I am not confident that he has the pure breakaway speed that you need at the position. Giants need to upgrade the speed and pass catching ability at the RB position. Giants should also do something to upgrade the OL - either at T or at LG or both. They have to get younger and more athletic.
The risk is that the Giants will sit tight and presume that the injuries are the cause of the 8-8 performance this year, but I am fairly confident that Reese will avoid that trap. Remember Reese's action in the first year he took over - he got rid of a bunch of aging players that were often hurt: Pettigout, Arrington, Emmons, Demp and a few others I can't recall right now. His philosophy is that injuries are part of the game and have to be managed as part of the personnel evaluations. When a player ages and starts to get injured, the pace of continuing injuries usually increases and simply has to be considered, as cruel and cold as that seems. I expect Reese to do the same surgery this year as he did in his first year with at least some of the aging veterans that were injured this year, including: Pierce, MacKenzie, Robbins and Seubert.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Giants: DC Fewell is signed
Just a few comments on Fewell - the defenses in Buffalo were good and aggressive despite having limited talent wen he was there as DC. When he was elevated to interim HC after Jauron was fired, the team went a respectable 3-4 and played with some fire. He played a lot of zone in Buffalo, often using a Tampa-2 defense, but the hope is that he will adjust and play whatever style works with the players he has in NY. In Buffalo, with really bad weather in the winter, even worse than the Meadowlands, it's hard to judge how well the defense really performed. Then again, with the awful Buffalo offense, there was probably a lot of pressure on the defense, with them staying on the field a lot and they did well. Fewell called the games from the coaches box upstairs when he was in Buffalo, it will be interesting to see if Coughlin relents and lets him do the same here.
I think it was very revealing to read what Coughlin said about Fewell in his press release.
“I expect Perry to bring the same qualities that I expect from myself. I want him to be firm, fair, honest and demanding. My expectation is that he will solidify and unify our defense and be an outstanding teacher.”
Nothing too dramatic, controversial or revealing in that statement. It is kind of normal coach-speak pablum. Although the comment about being an outstanding teacher was interesting - I am not sure Sheridan did much of that. But perhaps we got a hint to what Coughlin's issues with Sheridan were in the next part of the press release. Coughlin added:
“I want energy, enthusiasm, toughness, and to make the necessary corrections and game adjustments.”
Breaking this statement down into its parts: Coughlin did not get the energy and enthusiasm from Sheridan that he got from Spagnuolo. We all saw that the players did not play with great fire or passion. This didn't show itself at the start of the game, perhaps, but as soon as something went wrong, they got down on themselves and the effort suffered. Sheridan also was not tough and demanding with the players - you get the feeling that all he did was pick on their errors and criticize. That's not the same as being tough and demanding up front, teaching the players technique and telling the players what he wanted. Second guessing, after the fact criticism, without teaching makes a team unravel.
The second part of the sentence, when Coughlin said he wanted the "necessary corrections and game adjustments" is, IMO, most revealing. Why would Coughlin say this? Why include it in the press release? Just leave it as a general statement about pulling the defense together. I think Coughlin saw that game planning and strategy was not Sheridan's strength and mid-game adjustments and corrections were even worse. Just for reference, look back to the New Orleans Saints game, the first game where the Giants defense was exposed as being weak. Giants went into the game with a defensive game plan to stop the run. They analyzed the Saints as a strong running team that liked to establish the run and then throw after that. I disagreed with that analysis, as did most experts, who think primarily of Brees and his outside weapons when you consider the Saints offense. An analyst on TV before the game, predicted that the Giants would get gashed up the middle by deep passes from the Saints, attacking their weak safeties. Of course, that is exactly what happened and the Giants defense was woefully unprepared for the passing attack of the Saints. Even if the Giants defensive coaches correctly read that the Saints were a run-first team, and the Saints broke tendencies by passing, the poor coaching was in not making any adjustments during the game. The Giants defense was bunched at the line of scrimmage to stop the run all game and they got beat with the pass. They played very predictable zone defenses putting their safeties in the position of having to cover 1-on-1 often and exposed them to the Saints passing game. The Giants made no changes during the game and gave up 40+ points to the Saints.
I think this reveals several things about the Giants defensive game planning under Sheridan: 1. He was not good at judging the opposing offense's strengths and weaknesses. 2. He was not good at self-scouting, judging his own defense's strengths and weaknesses, nor was he able to come up with a game plan that covered up Giants weaknesses and compensated for their flaws. 3. He was not good at making in-game corrections and adjustments.
I think all of these things are referred to in the press statement by Coughlin.
It will be interesting to see which coaches Fewell keeps and which he lets go. It was logical to keep all the coaches, giving Fewell a chance to interview them and let him build his own staff. No doubt he will bring some new coaches in and he may keep some that are currently on staff. DL coach Waufle must have done something to tick someone off, to be the only coach who was fired before the new DC came in.
I think it was very revealing to read what Coughlin said about Fewell in his press release.
“I expect Perry to bring the same qualities that I expect from myself. I want him to be firm, fair, honest and demanding. My expectation is that he will solidify and unify our defense and be an outstanding teacher.”
Nothing too dramatic, controversial or revealing in that statement. It is kind of normal coach-speak pablum. Although the comment about being an outstanding teacher was interesting - I am not sure Sheridan did much of that. But perhaps we got a hint to what Coughlin's issues with Sheridan were in the next part of the press release. Coughlin added:
“I want energy, enthusiasm, toughness, and to make the necessary corrections and game adjustments.”
Breaking this statement down into its parts: Coughlin did not get the energy and enthusiasm from Sheridan that he got from Spagnuolo. We all saw that the players did not play with great fire or passion. This didn't show itself at the start of the game, perhaps, but as soon as something went wrong, they got down on themselves and the effort suffered. Sheridan also was not tough and demanding with the players - you get the feeling that all he did was pick on their errors and criticize. That's not the same as being tough and demanding up front, teaching the players technique and telling the players what he wanted. Second guessing, after the fact criticism, without teaching makes a team unravel.
The second part of the sentence, when Coughlin said he wanted the "necessary corrections and game adjustments" is, IMO, most revealing. Why would Coughlin say this? Why include it in the press release? Just leave it as a general statement about pulling the defense together. I think Coughlin saw that game planning and strategy was not Sheridan's strength and mid-game adjustments and corrections were even worse. Just for reference, look back to the New Orleans Saints game, the first game where the Giants defense was exposed as being weak. Giants went into the game with a defensive game plan to stop the run. They analyzed the Saints as a strong running team that liked to establish the run and then throw after that. I disagreed with that analysis, as did most experts, who think primarily of Brees and his outside weapons when you consider the Saints offense. An analyst on TV before the game, predicted that the Giants would get gashed up the middle by deep passes from the Saints, attacking their weak safeties. Of course, that is exactly what happened and the Giants defense was woefully unprepared for the passing attack of the Saints. Even if the Giants defensive coaches correctly read that the Saints were a run-first team, and the Saints broke tendencies by passing, the poor coaching was in not making any adjustments during the game. The Giants defense was bunched at the line of scrimmage to stop the run all game and they got beat with the pass. They played very predictable zone defenses putting their safeties in the position of having to cover 1-on-1 often and exposed them to the Saints passing game. The Giants made no changes during the game and gave up 40+ points to the Saints.
I think this reveals several things about the Giants defensive game planning under Sheridan: 1. He was not good at judging the opposing offense's strengths and weaknesses. 2. He was not good at self-scouting, judging his own defense's strengths and weaknesses, nor was he able to come up with a game plan that covered up Giants weaknesses and compensated for their flaws. 3. He was not good at making in-game corrections and adjustments.
I think all of these things are referred to in the press statement by Coughlin.
It will be interesting to see which coaches Fewell keeps and which he lets go. It was logical to keep all the coaches, giving Fewell a chance to interview them and let him build his own staff. No doubt he will bring some new coaches in and he may keep some that are currently on staff. DL coach Waufle must have done something to tick someone off, to be the only coach who was fired before the new DC came in.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Giants: coaching and management changes
No surprise that DC Bill Sheridan is gone, it was completely expected and did not take a lot of deliberation from Coughlin and the management team. But Thursday the Giants also announced that DL coach Mike Waufle was fired and I am a little surprised at that. There's no doubt that the defense played well below preseason expectations. There's also no doubt that the DL was thought to be an enormous strength on this team and was a surprising weakness. I hope there's more to the dismissals of Sheridan and Waufle than that; I hope the analysis runs a little deeper. Put another way, I can understand Sheridan being dismissed. He had never been a DC before and it is possible to analyze his performance, how he used his tools, diminished though they were by injuries, and make a determination. It is possible that Coughlin made the judgement that Sheridan did not do well and that he did not have the goods to improve in the future. However, in Mike Waufle's case, while it is true that the DL did poorly this year, it is also true that he is doing the same job that he has done for the last several years. He has a track record of success and capable coaching at this exact position. He was popular with his players, was a good leader and I am a little surprised that he was dismissed. If any unit can rationalize weaker performance because of injuries, it is the DL. Tuck was playing with one shoulder, Cantry was playing on one leg and both are having surgery to repair their injuries. In addition, budding star Alford was lost for the season. Other players underperformed either because they are slowing down or because they had not sufficiently recovered from previous injuries (Robbins, Osi, Cofield). I know the old hackneyed saying that you can't use injuries as an excuse, but you also can't judge a coach if he's not playing with a full toolbox. Furthermore, the uncreative schemes that the Giants used on defense were dictated by the DC, not the DL coach, and those predictable sets had more to do with the DL and the defense weakening than did the coaching by Waufle. Maybe a shakeup at every level will inspire (i.e. frighten) the players to not be casual about their preparation and will get them to play faster and more emotionally. But it is still a little surprising to me that Waufle is gone. Frankly, there were far more breakdowns in the DB-field than there were in the DL in the way of missed assignments, poor tackling and poor technique. I would think that Merritt and Giunta might be on the hot seat also.
Marc Ross, the genius whiz kid that is the Giants director of college scouting and talent evaluation is being interviewed for the GM job in Seattle. If he is offered the job and leaves, that will be a huge loss for the Giants. The drafts the last several years, since he ascended to that position have been great and he is largely credited with it.
Marc Ross, the genius whiz kid that is the Giants director of college scouting and talent evaluation is being interviewed for the GM job in Seattle. If he is offered the job and leaves, that will be a huge loss for the Giants. The drafts the last several years, since he ascended to that position have been great and he is largely credited with it.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Giants: What's Next?
Everyone always looks for easy answers. When a situation is in disarray, or to describe it the way they might on MTV's Jersey Shore, when things are a f-ing mess, it is not uncommon to look for one thing to blame, one scapegoat, one thing to fix and go after it. It is somehow comforting to feel that there is only one thing wrong, one thing that is broken and if you are able to fix it, you will be back on the path to health, or in this case, back on the road to a successful football team. It is much more daunting to look at 5 or 6 things that may be broken, because it may take years to fix them all. I think this applies to the current Giants team. The quick fix, the scapegoat, the obvious one to blame for this disaster of a season is the DC, Bill Sheridan. After all, the Giants had a great defense in 2007 and 2008; it was upgraded with some key FA acquisitions and it was thought to be loaded. Far from having a dominant defense, the Giants gave up 427 points, second highest total in their history. There were injuries, to be sure, but there is no doubt that the defense did not play up to its potential. The defense was unimaginative, predictable and played without passion. The fundamentals were weak, with poor tackling, poor zone technique in pass coverage and hosts of blown assignments especially in the passing game. In run defense, the poor fundamentals showed up in lack of discipline in filling running lanes, poor outside contain and poor gap control. The coaches did not coach the players well enough, but the players also did not play well enough.
To put all the blame for this fiasco on the DC is clearly wrong. Don't misunderstand me, I think he needs to be fired, but there are some fundamental personnel changes that need to be made on both sides of the ball, but particularly on the defense and the organization has to look beyond just the DC for coaching changes. Let's face it - the Giants quit on their coaches in the last two games of the season. Michael Strahan said it on one of the Fox NFL studio shows; he said: "The Giants licked a stamp, put it on and envelope and mailed it in weeks ago." This quitting goes well beyond the defense as neither the offense nor ST showed up the last two weeks. When the team quits on the coach, when he does not have his finger on the pulse of the team, when he is unable to motivate his players to perform with some energy and commitment, it is time to think about changing the coach. I think Coughlin is a fine coach, a winning coach, and is obviously capable of winning championships. But sometimes, the players don't hear the voice of the coach that has been harping at them for years (6 years in the case of Coughlin) and a change is needed. After the 2006 season, the Giants ownership and management were considering firing Coughlin because of the mediocre performance (8-8 record compared to 11-5 the previous season and another 1st round playoff loss, this time to the Eagles). They also did not like his treatment of players, his confrontational style with the press and his attitude. He was able to convince management that he could change his attitude, and most of all that although the players complained, they played hard for him and the team hadn't quit on him. This was evidenced by the win in week 17 of 2006 to make the playoffs and the comeback in the 4th qtr of the playoff game against the Eagles to tie the score with 5 minutes left before ultimately succumbing. This was the sign that the team had not quit. Well if those are signs that the team had not quit on the coach in 2006, the evidence is manifest that the team quit on the coach in 2009. Even with a playoff bid in the balance, they did not show up against the Panthers in week 16 and were even worse in Minnesota in week 17. The worst indictment for a coach is that the players quit on him and sometimes, the only thing to do is to fire the coach. If not, you have to completely shake up the personnel to get a different mix of players in the locker room. I am not talking about window-dressing, like bringing in a new backup S. I am talking about big personnel changes to both upgrade the team and the attitude of the players. Sometimes, you have to do both - back up the truck and clean out the entire team, coaches included.
You're probably wondering what the Giants need to do, and I am only too happy to help you out. The Giants need 2 new starting LBs and they need to drastically change the character of this position on the team. This is not your grandmother's NFL - this is a passing and speed league and the LBs need to step up and be part of it. Look around the league and the LBs are more like small forwards in the NBA than they are like plodding, Charles Oakley-type power forwards. Offenses have gotten into the habit of throwing out of quick 3 step drops to mitigate the threat of blitz or big pass rush. As a result, LBs need to drop back into coverage quickly, play in space and defend the pass. Pierce, even before he had lost a step or two, was not this kind of player. Now that he has slowed down, he is simply no longer able to compete at a high level. The LBs are the great athletes on the team - great speed and enough power to stand up to the running game when it comes their way. But if the LBs are a little smaller and more athletic, you need to bulk up the DL against the run, to stop the run themselves and at the very least to keep the OL-men from moving to the second level too easily and blocking the slightly-smaller LBs. For the Giants, this also takes the form of getting 1 or 2 new DTs to play better run defense. Canty was hurt all year, so I am not willing to write him off, Cofield is young enough to come back from his surgery in the off season and Alford might recover from his season-ending injury. But Robbins and Bernard look to be done to me and should probably be cut in favor of some powerful DTs.
It goes without saying that the Giants need to fix the S position. Neither C.C. Brown nor Aaron Rouse appear to be NFL caliber safeties in a passing league. Michael Johnson played well in the past, although he had an awful year in 2009. Giants will need to add 1 starting S and may need to add 2 if Phillips does not come all the way back. That is a lot of change on defense - 5 or 6 new starters.
There is another area that needs to be addressed in the front 7 and that is the Osi situation. After the Panthers game, Osi complained that he wasn't used right, that he probably played his last game as a Giant. In response, he played most of the Minnesota game, was poor against the run and did not get much of a pass rush either. Coughlin commented in response to Osi's remarks that: "he is an important player and is in the Giants plan for the future". Sounds good so far. Then Coughlin added another gratuitous comment that had me wondering. He said: "Osi is an asset to this organization". Why did Coughlin say that? Why didn't he stop after his first sentence, or add something like: we anticipate that he will return to his former high level of performance and be an outstanding player for us in the future. This "important asset" comment sounds suspiciously to me like he might be traded. An asset, after all, is not necessarily a player on the field. An asset is something you can move or trade to imporve your team. When a player starts complaining like this, there is often no salvaging the situation, especially if the player views himself as a star. If you restore the player's playing time and reinstall him as starter, then you have to deal with other players who will feel unhappy that the squeaky wheel got oiled. Conversely, if you keep him on the bench, the situation festers, the locker room divides and it is bad for the team. Occasionally you can find some compromise, but frequently, it spins out of control. Osi was never a great run stopper and he was further exposed this year when the DTs and the LBs around him slipped in their run support. Because of his limited on-field performance and his attitude which has the potential to fracture the locker room, Osi is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I would package Osi up with the Giants 1st and 3rd round draft pick and send him to Spagnuolo in Saint Louis for their 1st round pick. Spagnuolo loved Osi and got him to play when he was DC in 2007. He may feel that he can revive him and get him back playing to the pro bowl level that he did in 2007. The Rams need lots of players and trading down makes sense for them. If they want more than that, I would consider throwing in one of our WRs, since the Rams desperately need offense. With that first pick, the Giants would take Ndamukong Suh, the Nebraska DT and it would go a long way to solving the DL problems. With the Giants pick at the 15th slot, the Rams could still get a QB if that is the direction they want to go.
With my preamble earlier about the new speed-first, athletic LBs in the NFL, it says two other important things about the Giants. First, with the need for faster, more athletic LBs, the era of zone blitz is nearing an end. Zone blitz is when you bring an extra DB or LB from one side of the field and drop a DE into coverage. Forget it, this does not work any more. Offenses go to quick release by the QB and force the DE to play pass defense, something he is ill equipped to do, because he is even slower than the LBs. The reason this affects the Giants is that Sheridan did even more zone-blitzing than Spagnuolo did and much more often than othe NFL teams. Giants have to do less of this in the future and be more creative and imaginative in their blitz packages. The second interesting affect on the Giants is that Clint Sintim, the impressive physical specimen that the Giants drafted out of Virginia in the 2009 draft, may not be a good fit for LB in this league. He was a mostly-pass-rusher in college and, although he was nominally a LB, he played often with his hand on the ground. If the Giants acquire some fast LBs and get rid of Osi in a trade as I have proposed, Sintim may return to playing DE. He might be a perfect situational pass rusher for the Giants replacing Osi.
To put all the blame for this fiasco on the DC is clearly wrong. Don't misunderstand me, I think he needs to be fired, but there are some fundamental personnel changes that need to be made on both sides of the ball, but particularly on the defense and the organization has to look beyond just the DC for coaching changes. Let's face it - the Giants quit on their coaches in the last two games of the season. Michael Strahan said it on one of the Fox NFL studio shows; he said: "The Giants licked a stamp, put it on and envelope and mailed it in weeks ago." This quitting goes well beyond the defense as neither the offense nor ST showed up the last two weeks. When the team quits on the coach, when he does not have his finger on the pulse of the team, when he is unable to motivate his players to perform with some energy and commitment, it is time to think about changing the coach. I think Coughlin is a fine coach, a winning coach, and is obviously capable of winning championships. But sometimes, the players don't hear the voice of the coach that has been harping at them for years (6 years in the case of Coughlin) and a change is needed. After the 2006 season, the Giants ownership and management were considering firing Coughlin because of the mediocre performance (8-8 record compared to 11-5 the previous season and another 1st round playoff loss, this time to the Eagles). They also did not like his treatment of players, his confrontational style with the press and his attitude. He was able to convince management that he could change his attitude, and most of all that although the players complained, they played hard for him and the team hadn't quit on him. This was evidenced by the win in week 17 of 2006 to make the playoffs and the comeback in the 4th qtr of the playoff game against the Eagles to tie the score with 5 minutes left before ultimately succumbing. This was the sign that the team had not quit. Well if those are signs that the team had not quit on the coach in 2006, the evidence is manifest that the team quit on the coach in 2009. Even with a playoff bid in the balance, they did not show up against the Panthers in week 16 and were even worse in Minnesota in week 17. The worst indictment for a coach is that the players quit on him and sometimes, the only thing to do is to fire the coach. If not, you have to completely shake up the personnel to get a different mix of players in the locker room. I am not talking about window-dressing, like bringing in a new backup S. I am talking about big personnel changes to both upgrade the team and the attitude of the players. Sometimes, you have to do both - back up the truck and clean out the entire team, coaches included.
You're probably wondering what the Giants need to do, and I am only too happy to help you out. The Giants need 2 new starting LBs and they need to drastically change the character of this position on the team. This is not your grandmother's NFL - this is a passing and speed league and the LBs need to step up and be part of it. Look around the league and the LBs are more like small forwards in the NBA than they are like plodding, Charles Oakley-type power forwards. Offenses have gotten into the habit of throwing out of quick 3 step drops to mitigate the threat of blitz or big pass rush. As a result, LBs need to drop back into coverage quickly, play in space and defend the pass. Pierce, even before he had lost a step or two, was not this kind of player. Now that he has slowed down, he is simply no longer able to compete at a high level. The LBs are the great athletes on the team - great speed and enough power to stand up to the running game when it comes their way. But if the LBs are a little smaller and more athletic, you need to bulk up the DL against the run, to stop the run themselves and at the very least to keep the OL-men from moving to the second level too easily and blocking the slightly-smaller LBs. For the Giants, this also takes the form of getting 1 or 2 new DTs to play better run defense. Canty was hurt all year, so I am not willing to write him off, Cofield is young enough to come back from his surgery in the off season and Alford might recover from his season-ending injury. But Robbins and Bernard look to be done to me and should probably be cut in favor of some powerful DTs.
It goes without saying that the Giants need to fix the S position. Neither C.C. Brown nor Aaron Rouse appear to be NFL caliber safeties in a passing league. Michael Johnson played well in the past, although he had an awful year in 2009. Giants will need to add 1 starting S and may need to add 2 if Phillips does not come all the way back. That is a lot of change on defense - 5 or 6 new starters.
There is another area that needs to be addressed in the front 7 and that is the Osi situation. After the Panthers game, Osi complained that he wasn't used right, that he probably played his last game as a Giant. In response, he played most of the Minnesota game, was poor against the run and did not get much of a pass rush either. Coughlin commented in response to Osi's remarks that: "he is an important player and is in the Giants plan for the future". Sounds good so far. Then Coughlin added another gratuitous comment that had me wondering. He said: "Osi is an asset to this organization". Why did Coughlin say that? Why didn't he stop after his first sentence, or add something like: we anticipate that he will return to his former high level of performance and be an outstanding player for us in the future. This "important asset" comment sounds suspiciously to me like he might be traded. An asset, after all, is not necessarily a player on the field. An asset is something you can move or trade to imporve your team. When a player starts complaining like this, there is often no salvaging the situation, especially if the player views himself as a star. If you restore the player's playing time and reinstall him as starter, then you have to deal with other players who will feel unhappy that the squeaky wheel got oiled. Conversely, if you keep him on the bench, the situation festers, the locker room divides and it is bad for the team. Occasionally you can find some compromise, but frequently, it spins out of control. Osi was never a great run stopper and he was further exposed this year when the DTs and the LBs around him slipped in their run support. Because of his limited on-field performance and his attitude which has the potential to fracture the locker room, Osi is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I would package Osi up with the Giants 1st and 3rd round draft pick and send him to Spagnuolo in Saint Louis for their 1st round pick. Spagnuolo loved Osi and got him to play when he was DC in 2007. He may feel that he can revive him and get him back playing to the pro bowl level that he did in 2007. The Rams need lots of players and trading down makes sense for them. If they want more than that, I would consider throwing in one of our WRs, since the Rams desperately need offense. With that first pick, the Giants would take Ndamukong Suh, the Nebraska DT and it would go a long way to solving the DL problems. With the Giants pick at the 15th slot, the Rams could still get a QB if that is the direction they want to go.
With my preamble earlier about the new speed-first, athletic LBs in the NFL, it says two other important things about the Giants. First, with the need for faster, more athletic LBs, the era of zone blitz is nearing an end. Zone blitz is when you bring an extra DB or LB from one side of the field and drop a DE into coverage. Forget it, this does not work any more. Offenses go to quick release by the QB and force the DE to play pass defense, something he is ill equipped to do, because he is even slower than the LBs. The reason this affects the Giants is that Sheridan did even more zone-blitzing than Spagnuolo did and much more often than othe NFL teams. Giants have to do less of this in the future and be more creative and imaginative in their blitz packages. The second interesting affect on the Giants is that Clint Sintim, the impressive physical specimen that the Giants drafted out of Virginia in the 2009 draft, may not be a good fit for LB in this league. He was a mostly-pass-rusher in college and, although he was nominally a LB, he played often with his hand on the ground. If the Giants acquire some fast LBs and get rid of Osi in a trade as I have proposed, Sintim may return to playing DE. He might be a perfect situational pass rusher for the Giants replacing Osi.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Giants: Coaching questions
There are some indications that the Giants are getting out-coached by their opponents. As much as the last two games may have exposed some weaknesses in the personnel, I think the coaches are at least partly to blame for not putting the players in the best position to succeed.
Cardinals came in with a novel plan against the Giants. They had 9 guys at the line of scrimmage to stop the run and would blitz often. This is not that new, lots of teams try to stop the Giants running game. The thing that the Cardinals did that was a little different was they showed one defense pre-snap and changed the safety's positioning after Eli adjusted the blocking schemes and/or the play call. Lots of defenses do this - show one defense to the QB on his pre-snap read and then change the defense at the last minute. The difference here is that the protection schemes that the Giants change to and the audibles that they make in response to the defense are so transparent and take so long for Eli to call out that when the defense re-adjusts, the Giants offensive play has no chance. This was particularly effective last week because the Cardinals S is very quick and very smart. For example, Cardinals would show 2-safeties back and near the snap, would walk one S up and shift to single safety high. It was too late for Eli to audible to a pass play, but he could change the direction of the running play to the opposite side of the field. To handle this, the S, instead of coming straight ahead, would run diagonally across the field and stop the running play. The play calls are too obvious, the changes that Giants make are too predictable and the Giants made an average Cardinals defense look like world beaters last week.
The announcers of the game seem to have discovered something about the Giants snap count. I don't know if they're exactly right, but it sure seemed like the Cardinals were getting a great jump on each play. This is something the coaches and Eli need to fix because it can make any offense look terrible. In 2000 when the Giants shutout the high powered Vikings offense 41-0 in the NFC championship game, the Giants discovered something on film about the Vikings snap count when they were in shotgun formation. Specifically, regardless of what the actual snap count was from the time that the OL got set, whether it was 1 beat or 5 beats, the C would drop his head and exactly 1 second later would snap the ball. This tipped the Giants when to rush. I can remember one play where Giants MLB Michael Barrow sped around the Vikings RT on a blitz and he was past him so fast that the RT did not have a chance to get out of his 3 point stance and even attempt a block. This is important. I don't think the Eagles are quite as exotic with their defense as the Cardinals were last week, they just like to dial up a lot of blitzes. But they will put extra guys in the box to stop the run and will blitz on running downs and passing downs. Giants have to be willing to take shots down the field and have to be a little deceptive on their formations and play calls.
Another indicator of being out-coached is the failure to make adjustments in-game to what the opposing team is doing. There are a few specific examples of this from the Cardinals game. In the first half, the Giants did a good job keeping Fitzgerald contained. They knew where he was lining up and they managed to get Webster or Thomas on him most of the time. In the 2nd half, the Cardinals lined up Fitzgerald at different spots - in the slot, even in the backfield once and managed to get him away from Webster. They got the matchups they wanted, with Fitzgerald in the middle of the field against a S and made a few big plays.
On the other side of the ball, the Giants had 14 points in the first half, though the offense did have some help in generating these points. One was good field position after a fumble recovery and one was on the lucky tipped ball by Nicks. Nevertheless, they did move the ball during the first half and at least had some plays for these scores. In the 2nd half, the Cardinals adjusted their defensive scheme, as noted above and the Giants did not get a first down on the first 3 possessions of the 2nd half. When the other team adjusts to what you're doing and stops you cold, that's 100% coaching.
Great coaches may have different game plans for the first half and second half. Or they may have a game plan assuming the opponents play to their tendencies and another game plan if the opponents do something different. I don't get the feeling that the Giants coaches go in with that level of planning. Against the Saints, the Giants players said that they expected the Saints to try to run the ball. I guess the Saints have run the ball 60% of the time in the 2nd half of games. (This is probably misleading, because a team tends to run a lot more when they have a big lead, but that's a different question.) Nevertheless, the coaches plan for a running attack by the Saints may not have been unreasonable. However when they saw the Saints throwing the ball all over the yard they should have changed their plan and made some adjustments.
Maybe this is just growing pains for the new DC and an OC that, although he's not new and has been around, needs to get used to new WRs and see what they can do. Certainly, I'd rather see this happening at the beginning of the year than at the end of the year, but the coaches have to show us that they can adjust the game plans before we give them high marks.
Cardinals came in with a novel plan against the Giants. They had 9 guys at the line of scrimmage to stop the run and would blitz often. This is not that new, lots of teams try to stop the Giants running game. The thing that the Cardinals did that was a little different was they showed one defense pre-snap and changed the safety's positioning after Eli adjusted the blocking schemes and/or the play call. Lots of defenses do this - show one defense to the QB on his pre-snap read and then change the defense at the last minute. The difference here is that the protection schemes that the Giants change to and the audibles that they make in response to the defense are so transparent and take so long for Eli to call out that when the defense re-adjusts, the Giants offensive play has no chance. This was particularly effective last week because the Cardinals S is very quick and very smart. For example, Cardinals would show 2-safeties back and near the snap, would walk one S up and shift to single safety high. It was too late for Eli to audible to a pass play, but he could change the direction of the running play to the opposite side of the field. To handle this, the S, instead of coming straight ahead, would run diagonally across the field and stop the running play. The play calls are too obvious, the changes that Giants make are too predictable and the Giants made an average Cardinals defense look like world beaters last week.
The announcers of the game seem to have discovered something about the Giants snap count. I don't know if they're exactly right, but it sure seemed like the Cardinals were getting a great jump on each play. This is something the coaches and Eli need to fix because it can make any offense look terrible. In 2000 when the Giants shutout the high powered Vikings offense 41-0 in the NFC championship game, the Giants discovered something on film about the Vikings snap count when they were in shotgun formation. Specifically, regardless of what the actual snap count was from the time that the OL got set, whether it was 1 beat or 5 beats, the C would drop his head and exactly 1 second later would snap the ball. This tipped the Giants when to rush. I can remember one play where Giants MLB Michael Barrow sped around the Vikings RT on a blitz and he was past him so fast that the RT did not have a chance to get out of his 3 point stance and even attempt a block. This is important. I don't think the Eagles are quite as exotic with their defense as the Cardinals were last week, they just like to dial up a lot of blitzes. But they will put extra guys in the box to stop the run and will blitz on running downs and passing downs. Giants have to be willing to take shots down the field and have to be a little deceptive on their formations and play calls.
Another indicator of being out-coached is the failure to make adjustments in-game to what the opposing team is doing. There are a few specific examples of this from the Cardinals game. In the first half, the Giants did a good job keeping Fitzgerald contained. They knew where he was lining up and they managed to get Webster or Thomas on him most of the time. In the 2nd half, the Cardinals lined up Fitzgerald at different spots - in the slot, even in the backfield once and managed to get him away from Webster. They got the matchups they wanted, with Fitzgerald in the middle of the field against a S and made a few big plays.
On the other side of the ball, the Giants had 14 points in the first half, though the offense did have some help in generating these points. One was good field position after a fumble recovery and one was on the lucky tipped ball by Nicks. Nevertheless, they did move the ball during the first half and at least had some plays for these scores. In the 2nd half, the Cardinals adjusted their defensive scheme, as noted above and the Giants did not get a first down on the first 3 possessions of the 2nd half. When the other team adjusts to what you're doing and stops you cold, that's 100% coaching.
Great coaches may have different game plans for the first half and second half. Or they may have a game plan assuming the opponents play to their tendencies and another game plan if the opponents do something different. I don't get the feeling that the Giants coaches go in with that level of planning. Against the Saints, the Giants players said that they expected the Saints to try to run the ball. I guess the Saints have run the ball 60% of the time in the 2nd half of games. (This is probably misleading, because a team tends to run a lot more when they have a big lead, but that's a different question.) Nevertheless, the coaches plan for a running attack by the Saints may not have been unreasonable. However when they saw the Saints throwing the ball all over the yard they should have changed their plan and made some adjustments.
Maybe this is just growing pains for the new DC and an OC that, although he's not new and has been around, needs to get used to new WRs and see what they can do. Certainly, I'd rather see this happening at the beginning of the year than at the end of the year, but the coaches have to show us that they can adjust the game plans before we give them high marks.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Giants: Spagnuolo, coaches, Cowboys
Spagnuolo
It is no surprise that Steve Spagnuolo left the team. With all the HC job openings, and his impressive accomplishments, it's hard to imagine any other result. In fact, although I hate to see him go, I am happy that he went to the Rams this year, instead of, say to the Cowboys or Redskins next year. Furthermore, I am really happy that Jason Garrett did not get the Rams job, for which he too was being considered. If Garrett had left the Cowboys, it would have given Jerry Jones the opening to make some coaching staff changes. Specifically, he might have brought in Gruden or Shanahan and moved Wade Phillips over to be the DC. With Garrett still in place, as OC, with the title of Assistant HC and the putative future HC designate, there is less room for Jones to maneuver. You can never tell with Jerry Jones - he might make a move with Wade Phillips and his coaching staff anyway, but the movement of Garrett might have given him the opening and the stimulus to act now.
Cowboys
There are rumors flying around that the Cowboys are going to cut TO, but that is more likely if the Cowboys were to make a coaching change now and bring in a legitimate, big name coach that does not want to put up with the daily TO soap opera. It is amazing with TO - the same act plays itself out over again and he has now undermined seriously the locker room chemistry on all 3 teams of which he has been a member. He excelled on the field, played nicely with his friends and was a good citizen for his first few years on the team. But after a while, when things did not go perfectly to his liking, he reverted back to his modus operandi, demanded the attention that very diva requires and made the team explode. It is not surprise that he behaved when Parcells was in charge, because he is a strong willed, hands-on, take charge coach, that does not put up with nonsense from his players. Wade Phillips is not a good disciplinarian or strong leader of men, so it is equally not surprising that TO started acting up with Phillips in charge. It is a little surprising that Andy Reid could not keep him in line in Philadelphia, but I get the feeling that he is not a strict coach and relies on picking players that are internal team leaders to keep things clean. Nevertheless, when TO calls out the qb, the coach, the play calling and the OC, it has several negative affects on the team. First, it forces the team to take sides: some defensive players and some other offensive players agreed publicly with TO that the team was not feeding him the ball enough and was not getting Roy Williams involved enough in the offense. The charge that Romo and his TE Witten were conspiring to keep TO and Roy Williams out of the offense was so insane that it should not have been dignified with an answer. But, when Romo, Witten and others did respond, denying the charge, it gave the story just enough legs and credence that it may have made players on the team actually mumble about it, if only amongst themselves and consider whether there may be some truth to it. There may have even been a racial component to the unrest thus created, though it was surely unintended. But more important, it gave confirmation, if only tacit, that the game plan was a mess. Romo and Witten only replied that they were not hijacking the game plan secretly. They did not say that the game plan was fine and that TO should shut up. So - the discussion on the team became: "Who is messing up the game plan? Romo and Witten?". The denial by Romo, Witten and even the coaching staff was in effect saying: "Romo and Witten are not secretly messing up the game plan; the coaches are doing that all by themselves". I think this creates a mood and an air of denigrating the coaching staff's ability and we saw other statements by other offensive players consistent with that. Romo was quoted as saying that the coaches did not figure out how to attack particular defenses or make mid-game adjustments to the game plan. It's not good when the qb is doing that. I hope Phillips, Garrett et. al. stay in place for a while. Cowboys fired their DC but if they stand pat and the Cowboys have another down year in their new stadium, Jones will surely make a coaching change next year.
Sheridan
I am very happy that the Giants promoted from within and moved the LB coach Sheridan up to replace Spagnuolo. It creates continuity with the defense, it creates good feelings with the coaches on the staff, who then feel that they have an opportunity to advance where they are and will work hard and diligently to get recognized. I liked and preferred the DB coach Giunta, rather than the LB coach, but Sheridan is also very well respected and will do a good job. Giunta was a DC before and you have to be very impressed with how well the DB-field has improved. He never gave up on Corey Webster and has turned him into a star. Aaron Ross had some unsteady moments this year, but is a very good CB and Terrell Thomas has great promise. You could simply say that this is a result of good drafting, but each player has improved his fundamentals, especially Webster, since Giunta took over. The defense is not just a product of the schemes and blitzes that Spags put in, but is a product of the individual players improving their techniques and their play at their position. In my opinion, no unit improved as much as the DB-field and Giunta gets credit for that. I would like to seem some movement on the offensive coaching staff. Gilbride is a solid OC and is a capable play caller, but is not as imaginative or creative as I would like. I am not saying he should be fired, but he is not very creative and there have been times when the play calling lacked deceptiveness. The Giants offense is simply the sum of its parts. When Burress went out and they lacked the deep threat, the offense declined - not surprising - but there was nothing there to replace it. No deception, no trick plays, little variation in the type of routes that were run, no injection of new blood from Moss or Manningham and most of all - no new schemes to replace the Burress threat at the goal line. I would like to see Coughlin get more involved in scheming and the offense and making it more dynamic. It's easy to say that the Giants need a big play WR, which they certainly do. But even if they get one, Giants offense succeeds when they dominate or simply outplay the other team; they never get any cheap scores with deception. Did you see the Colts-Ravens opening wild card game? Peyton Manning got a cheap TD by hurrying his team to the line, calling a play and running it before the defense was set. Giants never do something like that. A little creativity is important.
It is no surprise that Steve Spagnuolo left the team. With all the HC job openings, and his impressive accomplishments, it's hard to imagine any other result. In fact, although I hate to see him go, I am happy that he went to the Rams this year, instead of, say to the Cowboys or Redskins next year. Furthermore, I am really happy that Jason Garrett did not get the Rams job, for which he too was being considered. If Garrett had left the Cowboys, it would have given Jerry Jones the opening to make some coaching staff changes. Specifically, he might have brought in Gruden or Shanahan and moved Wade Phillips over to be the DC. With Garrett still in place, as OC, with the title of Assistant HC and the putative future HC designate, there is less room for Jones to maneuver. You can never tell with Jerry Jones - he might make a move with Wade Phillips and his coaching staff anyway, but the movement of Garrett might have given him the opening and the stimulus to act now.
Cowboys
There are rumors flying around that the Cowboys are going to cut TO, but that is more likely if the Cowboys were to make a coaching change now and bring in a legitimate, big name coach that does not want to put up with the daily TO soap opera. It is amazing with TO - the same act plays itself out over again and he has now undermined seriously the locker room chemistry on all 3 teams of which he has been a member. He excelled on the field, played nicely with his friends and was a good citizen for his first few years on the team. But after a while, when things did not go perfectly to his liking, he reverted back to his modus operandi, demanded the attention that very diva requires and made the team explode. It is not surprise that he behaved when Parcells was in charge, because he is a strong willed, hands-on, take charge coach, that does not put up with nonsense from his players. Wade Phillips is not a good disciplinarian or strong leader of men, so it is equally not surprising that TO started acting up with Phillips in charge. It is a little surprising that Andy Reid could not keep him in line in Philadelphia, but I get the feeling that he is not a strict coach and relies on picking players that are internal team leaders to keep things clean. Nevertheless, when TO calls out the qb, the coach, the play calling and the OC, it has several negative affects on the team. First, it forces the team to take sides: some defensive players and some other offensive players agreed publicly with TO that the team was not feeding him the ball enough and was not getting Roy Williams involved enough in the offense. The charge that Romo and his TE Witten were conspiring to keep TO and Roy Williams out of the offense was so insane that it should not have been dignified with an answer. But, when Romo, Witten and others did respond, denying the charge, it gave the story just enough legs and credence that it may have made players on the team actually mumble about it, if only amongst themselves and consider whether there may be some truth to it. There may have even been a racial component to the unrest thus created, though it was surely unintended. But more important, it gave confirmation, if only tacit, that the game plan was a mess. Romo and Witten only replied that they were not hijacking the game plan secretly. They did not say that the game plan was fine and that TO should shut up. So - the discussion on the team became: "Who is messing up the game plan? Romo and Witten?". The denial by Romo, Witten and even the coaching staff was in effect saying: "Romo and Witten are not secretly messing up the game plan; the coaches are doing that all by themselves". I think this creates a mood and an air of denigrating the coaching staff's ability and we saw other statements by other offensive players consistent with that. Romo was quoted as saying that the coaches did not figure out how to attack particular defenses or make mid-game adjustments to the game plan. It's not good when the qb is doing that. I hope Phillips, Garrett et. al. stay in place for a while. Cowboys fired their DC but if they stand pat and the Cowboys have another down year in their new stadium, Jones will surely make a coaching change next year.
Sheridan
I am very happy that the Giants promoted from within and moved the LB coach Sheridan up to replace Spagnuolo. It creates continuity with the defense, it creates good feelings with the coaches on the staff, who then feel that they have an opportunity to advance where they are and will work hard and diligently to get recognized. I liked and preferred the DB coach Giunta, rather than the LB coach, but Sheridan is also very well respected and will do a good job. Giunta was a DC before and you have to be very impressed with how well the DB-field has improved. He never gave up on Corey Webster and has turned him into a star. Aaron Ross had some unsteady moments this year, but is a very good CB and Terrell Thomas has great promise. You could simply say that this is a result of good drafting, but each player has improved his fundamentals, especially Webster, since Giunta took over. The defense is not just a product of the schemes and blitzes that Spags put in, but is a product of the individual players improving their techniques and their play at their position. In my opinion, no unit improved as much as the DB-field and Giunta gets credit for that. I would like to seem some movement on the offensive coaching staff. Gilbride is a solid OC and is a capable play caller, but is not as imaginative or creative as I would like. I am not saying he should be fired, but he is not very creative and there have been times when the play calling lacked deceptiveness. The Giants offense is simply the sum of its parts. When Burress went out and they lacked the deep threat, the offense declined - not surprising - but there was nothing there to replace it. No deception, no trick plays, little variation in the type of routes that were run, no injection of new blood from Moss or Manningham and most of all - no new schemes to replace the Burress threat at the goal line. I would like to see Coughlin get more involved in scheming and the offense and making it more dynamic. It's easy to say that the Giants need a big play WR, which they certainly do. But even if they get one, Giants offense succeeds when they dominate or simply outplay the other team; they never get any cheap scores with deception. Did you see the Colts-Ravens opening wild card game? Peyton Manning got a cheap TD by hurrying his team to the line, calling a play and running it before the defense was set. Giants never do something like that. A little creativity is important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)