The Cowboys beating the Giants at the new stadium was a killer for the Giants season, but the Eagles really killed the Giants this year. Not only did they sweep the Giants, the second one in the Giants building in one of the most devastating losses in NFL history. But - they lost in their own building to the 2 TD underdog Vikings Tuesday night. Consequently, the slim chance that the Giants had to make the playoffs evaporated. When the Saints won last night against the Falcons, the Giants lost one slim chance to make the playoffs. Their second opportunity was the Bears beating the Packers next weekend and the Giants beating the Redskins. However, with the Eagles losing, the Bears are now locked in to the number 2 seed and have absolutely nothing to play for next week when they play the Packers. Had the Eagles beaten the Vikings, then the Bears would have had to win to lock up the number 2 seed and stay ahead of the Eagles. Now, that is not required by the Bears. The only motivation for the Bears might come if the Falcons lose, because then a Bears win would give them the number 1 seed. However the Falcons are playing the Panthers and it is unlikely they will lose, so the Bears have nothing to play for.
Giants didn't deserve it. They needed to win one of the two games against the Eagles and Packers and failed.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Giants: Packers game review II
Defense was really overwhelmed on Sunday, but it was definitely a team effort. The offense didn't help by turning the ball over and giving a short field to defend. Furthermore, the offense scored two TDs in the first half on two long pass plays and the time of possession was really short. The offense did not get the running game going consistently, gaining only 90 yards rushing on the day. The few times that the offense seemed like it was going or got an attempt for a big running play, the RBs put the ball on the turf.
Turnovers hurt for two reasons, 1-you lose an opportunity to score and give the other team an extra opportunity to score. Perhaps more importantly, 2- you flip the field position of the game. In this context there are two kinds of turnovers - some interceptions that come at the end of a long attempt down field with no runback, give the opponents an extra possession, but in terms of field position are not much worse than a punt. However a fumble, is always at the spot of the turnover and gives away whatever field position your offense has established until then and takes away the opportunity, at the very least, to punt and push the opposing offense's starting field position back.
What was so upsetting about the two fumbles by Jacobs and Bradshaw Sunday is that they were so sloppy and were completely avoidable. Sometimes the defense makes a great play, and hits the ball with their helmet, or has a great strip with one or two people unexpectedly knocking the ball loose and there is little the RB could have done to prevent it. However, on Bradshaw's fumble, he was facing the defense, could see where the defender's were coming from and should have secured the ball. The defender, from a few feet away, reached out and slapped the ball knocking it loose. The fact that he was a few feet away indicates that it was not a hard swat and he barely reached the ball. Bradshaw was carrying the ball low and loose in one hand, not high and tight. When his starting job was taken away, he was ticked off, but he did not change his method or style of carrying the ball. He always carries it one in arm, always away from his body where it is unprotected and sometimes carries it loosely, not tight and secure even in the one hand he uses. It is pure fortune that he didn't fumble more often since being demoted. Either the coaches didn't coach him well or he's not coachable, but there were no consequences to his fumbles. He may not have gotten the honor of starting, but after a game, his carries were up as high as they had been when he was not starting. He should have been out of the lineup save for a pass play here or there and DJ Ware should have taken his carries.
Jacobs fumble was not quite as bad, but also was very avoidable and inexcusable. He was behind the defense and Matthews caught up to him from behind, slightly to Jacobs' rear left. Matthew reached forward with his let arm and grabbed Jacobs by his left shoulder pad. When a RB sees or feels contact, he's got to increase security on the ball. Jacobs should have wrapped up the ball with both hands as soon as he felt Matthews, but he didn't and Matthews swung his right arm around and punched the ball out. The RBs have not exhibited even the slightest notions of ball security, even after all the fumbles. If you keep doing the same things, you'll get the same results; it is pure luck that the RBs didn't continue to fumble for those few games after Jacobs replaced Bradshaw. BTW - great move by Boss trying to pick up the fumble with his hands instead of falling on it.
Eli's INTs were pretty bad, but I don't even care about the last few - he was desperate and was taking chances hoping for a play. Of course, it wouldn't be a Giants game if one INT didn't bounce of the intended receiver's hands and went to the defender on yet another tipped ball INT. Of course the game was well over by that time.
I have been one of Eli's biggest proponents and supporters, but it is certainly legitimate to ask - how good is he? Last two weeks, two QBs completely took away the game from the Giants, one with his feet and one with his arm. Eli has played well at times this year, and in fact played brilliantly on occasion, but we haven't seen him really dominate a game and win it all by himself. Maybe that's just the type of player he is. We know he is good enough to win a championship - he's got that on his resume already - but I would have liked to see him play at a high level more often this year. And those INT's..... ugh.
We were all feeling good and confident that the starting OL had been restored the last few games, but I will ask now, with admitted hindsight - was that really such a good thing? O'Hara did not play well at all in these last two games, getting beaten often on running plays and passing plays right up the middle. He simply whiffed on several blocks giving the DT penetration up the middle which ruins passing and running plays. One could validly ask whether it was such a good idea to move O'Hara back at C and Seubert out of that slot, back to G replacing Boothe who had been playing well. It was probably worth a try; it would be a complete second guess to say they should have left O'Hara on the bench. But once you saw the OL blocking ineffectively, they should have tried a different alignment and reverted back to what had worked when O'Hara was out.
The second point about the OL is this: I understand that it is good to get your starters back, but this is the same OL that started for us in the Super Bowl year of 2007. In fact they were together on the team for a year or two before then, although not in that exact configuration. (2007 was Diehl's first year starting at LT from the beginning of the year.) My point is - while stability in the OL is good, how many other teams in the NFL have the exact same starters this year that they did four years ago. The OL is getting a little long in the tooth, with O'Hara, Seubert, Diehl and MacKenzie getting on in years. When that happens, either performance goes down or injuries start to pile up. To be fair, the Giants did add a few OL-men through FA and the draft in Andrews, Beatty and Petrus. Andrews showed some ability before his back issue, but the other two have not started or gotten any playing time other than to replace an injured player. Giants have to get better and younger in the OL. It was inconsistent this year.
In the middle of the year when the defense looked perky, I was worried that some other team would swoop in and steal Fewell from the Giants, making him their HC and the Giants would have him for only one year. Now I am worried that some other team will NOT swoop in to steal him from the Giants and we will have him for more than one year.
Turnovers hurt for two reasons, 1-you lose an opportunity to score and give the other team an extra opportunity to score. Perhaps more importantly, 2- you flip the field position of the game. In this context there are two kinds of turnovers - some interceptions that come at the end of a long attempt down field with no runback, give the opponents an extra possession, but in terms of field position are not much worse than a punt. However a fumble, is always at the spot of the turnover and gives away whatever field position your offense has established until then and takes away the opportunity, at the very least, to punt and push the opposing offense's starting field position back.
What was so upsetting about the two fumbles by Jacobs and Bradshaw Sunday is that they were so sloppy and were completely avoidable. Sometimes the defense makes a great play, and hits the ball with their helmet, or has a great strip with one or two people unexpectedly knocking the ball loose and there is little the RB could have done to prevent it. However, on Bradshaw's fumble, he was facing the defense, could see where the defender's were coming from and should have secured the ball. The defender, from a few feet away, reached out and slapped the ball knocking it loose. The fact that he was a few feet away indicates that it was not a hard swat and he barely reached the ball. Bradshaw was carrying the ball low and loose in one hand, not high and tight. When his starting job was taken away, he was ticked off, but he did not change his method or style of carrying the ball. He always carries it one in arm, always away from his body where it is unprotected and sometimes carries it loosely, not tight and secure even in the one hand he uses. It is pure fortune that he didn't fumble more often since being demoted. Either the coaches didn't coach him well or he's not coachable, but there were no consequences to his fumbles. He may not have gotten the honor of starting, but after a game, his carries were up as high as they had been when he was not starting. He should have been out of the lineup save for a pass play here or there and DJ Ware should have taken his carries.
Jacobs fumble was not quite as bad, but also was very avoidable and inexcusable. He was behind the defense and Matthews caught up to him from behind, slightly to Jacobs' rear left. Matthew reached forward with his let arm and grabbed Jacobs by his left shoulder pad. When a RB sees or feels contact, he's got to increase security on the ball. Jacobs should have wrapped up the ball with both hands as soon as he felt Matthews, but he didn't and Matthews swung his right arm around and punched the ball out. The RBs have not exhibited even the slightest notions of ball security, even after all the fumbles. If you keep doing the same things, you'll get the same results; it is pure luck that the RBs didn't continue to fumble for those few games after Jacobs replaced Bradshaw. BTW - great move by Boss trying to pick up the fumble with his hands instead of falling on it.
Eli's INTs were pretty bad, but I don't even care about the last few - he was desperate and was taking chances hoping for a play. Of course, it wouldn't be a Giants game if one INT didn't bounce of the intended receiver's hands and went to the defender on yet another tipped ball INT. Of course the game was well over by that time.
I have been one of Eli's biggest proponents and supporters, but it is certainly legitimate to ask - how good is he? Last two weeks, two QBs completely took away the game from the Giants, one with his feet and one with his arm. Eli has played well at times this year, and in fact played brilliantly on occasion, but we haven't seen him really dominate a game and win it all by himself. Maybe that's just the type of player he is. We know he is good enough to win a championship - he's got that on his resume already - but I would have liked to see him play at a high level more often this year. And those INT's..... ugh.
We were all feeling good and confident that the starting OL had been restored the last few games, but I will ask now, with admitted hindsight - was that really such a good thing? O'Hara did not play well at all in these last two games, getting beaten often on running plays and passing plays right up the middle. He simply whiffed on several blocks giving the DT penetration up the middle which ruins passing and running plays. One could validly ask whether it was such a good idea to move O'Hara back at C and Seubert out of that slot, back to G replacing Boothe who had been playing well. It was probably worth a try; it would be a complete second guess to say they should have left O'Hara on the bench. But once you saw the OL blocking ineffectively, they should have tried a different alignment and reverted back to what had worked when O'Hara was out.
The second point about the OL is this: I understand that it is good to get your starters back, but this is the same OL that started for us in the Super Bowl year of 2007. In fact they were together on the team for a year or two before then, although not in that exact configuration. (2007 was Diehl's first year starting at LT from the beginning of the year.) My point is - while stability in the OL is good, how many other teams in the NFL have the exact same starters this year that they did four years ago. The OL is getting a little long in the tooth, with O'Hara, Seubert, Diehl and MacKenzie getting on in years. When that happens, either performance goes down or injuries start to pile up. To be fair, the Giants did add a few OL-men through FA and the draft in Andrews, Beatty and Petrus. Andrews showed some ability before his back issue, but the other two have not started or gotten any playing time other than to replace an injured player. Giants have to get better and younger in the OL. It was inconsistent this year.
In the middle of the year when the defense looked perky, I was worried that some other team would swoop in and steal Fewell from the Giants, making him their HC and the Giants would have him for only one year. Now I am worried that some other team will NOT swoop in to steal him from the Giants and we will have him for more than one year.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Giants: Packers game; the party's over
Life in the NFL is really crazy. They call it a week-to-week league, more than any other sport, and that assessment could not be more accurate. Giants were half a quarter away from winning the division, would have had a lock on the 2nd seed and the best chance of all the other NFC teams to knock off the Falcons and go to the title game. Instead, the worst 8 minutes of defensive play, coaching blunders, ST mistakes and player errors leads to what probably could be called the worst loss in NFL history. Then, in a game where everyone expects the Giants to be professional, to play with heart and to come back with a gritty performance, the team follows it up with an even worse performance, giving up 45 points and making 6 turnovers yesterday in Green Bay. Two of the turnovers came in desperation time when the Giants took ridiculous gambles to try to get back in the game and one of the turnovers was not really a turnover, the ref missed the call when the Green Bay DB was out of bounds and did not make a legal catch. But 6 turnovers is still 6 turnovers. The scoreboard and the stat sheet don't lie. The exact same thing that has been plaguing the Giants all year, turnovers, continued to be the Achilles heel yesterday. There are some things that coaches can fix and somethings that they can't. If the team has a severe player weakness at one position or another, there is not much a coach can do to "coach 'em up" to get around it. If the OL can't block, if the DL doesn't have pass rushers, if the RB doesn't have speed, no amount of coaching can make the OL bigger, the DL quicker or the RB faster. But turnovers - teaching ball security - sitting guys down if they don't listen - that's something that a coach can work on. This coaching staff didn't do it.
The question that needs to be asked is why did this happen and how do the Giants fix it? Is this a coaching failure, a player's failure or the front office. Frankly, I think everyone has to play a part. Anyone who reads this blog knows that I love Eli and think he is a top QB, but he had a miserable season. Thirty TD passes is a great number and if he throws for 250 yards next week against the Redskins he will go over 4,000 yards again, but twenty-four interceptions is just horrible. Tom Brady has gone more than 300 pass attempts without throwing an INT and I doubt that Eli has gone 30 throws this year without an INT. His 24 INTs have come on 522 attempts, which is an average of 1 INT every 21.75 throws. Ridiculous. Somehow it looked to me at times that Eli lost some arm strength this year. There were some times where he under-threw receivers on deep balls and did not get enough zip on the underneath routes. I am not sure if this is true or if there were some other circumstances that made it appear this way. Another reason that offense had so many INTs and so many up and down games comes from the coaching staff. The passing offense is too complex, requiring too many on-the-fly reads and adjustments so that it is too easy for the QB and WR to not be in sync. Even yesterday, there were several times when Eli came to the sidelines talking to his WR, motioning with his hands that he should have gone outside instead of inside, and Gilbride was yelling at Hagan that he should have run his route differently. This was week 16. When exactly are the players going to master the offense? It's either because the offense that the coaches have designed is too complex or the coaches can't teach it to the players. Either way, Gilbride's offense is not as effective as it should be. Finally, I am not letting the WRs and the front office off the hook. As much as we liked the WR group early in the year, when all three, Smith, Manningham and Nicks, were humming, they sure took a dive when Smith went out. As much as I like each one, there is not enough pure, raw speed on the offense at WR, or at RB for that matter. Look at the Eagles and Packers, the teams Giants played last two weeks and both create enormous matchup problems for defenses. You can play them great for 3 quarters, but if you make one or two mistakes, they burn you for TDs. Giants rarely do that . Too much of the Giants passing offense requires perfection - the perfect route, the perfect back shoulder fade, perfect timing between the QB and WR. Look how simple the Packers passing offense was - when the Giants were playing zone or giving a cushion, they ran quick slants. When the Giants were up tight and playing pressure with their CBs, the Packers WRs would try to go deep. Simplicity is sometimes beauty - but you need the speed threat and depth at WR to pull it off and the Giants don't have that.
The worst part of the coaching is the inability and unwillingness to change things up, both over the course of the season or within a game. The Giants Fewell was given high marks for the 3-S look and for the aggressive blitzing, but he didn't know when to adjust. He did not dial back the blitzes against the Eagles, and the league caught up to the Giants 3-S look as Rodgers, last week and a few others earlier, burned it for a few big plays. The 3-S look gets the best defenders on the field, but it makes the edgy, leaning forward and aggressive, anxious to come up hard and fill the lanes on a running play. When that happens, a play action fake makes them get beat on their pass defense responsibility which is what happened to Rolle yesterday.
I don't think Coughlin is a terrible coach. In fact, I think he has a very good football mind, is a good organizer and motivator. I also admire him personally, especially for the community and charity work he has done. But I think the coordinators he has are not great: Gilbride is not creative enough and Fewell is too inexperienced and not a good game manager and adjuster. Therefore, I think Coughlin needed to be a stronger influence with them and a better manager of his coordinators for the team to succeed. He wasn't. If it's possible to change coordinators and have Coughlin a little more hands-on with his coaches to exert his influence a little more, I think Coughlin could survive. Alas, I don't think it works that way in the NFL. If the Giants should win next week and somehow sneak into the playoffs because of some help from other teams, Coughlin might survive. Unlikely.
The question that needs to be asked is why did this happen and how do the Giants fix it? Is this a coaching failure, a player's failure or the front office. Frankly, I think everyone has to play a part. Anyone who reads this blog knows that I love Eli and think he is a top QB, but he had a miserable season. Thirty TD passes is a great number and if he throws for 250 yards next week against the Redskins he will go over 4,000 yards again, but twenty-four interceptions is just horrible. Tom Brady has gone more than 300 pass attempts without throwing an INT and I doubt that Eli has gone 30 throws this year without an INT. His 24 INTs have come on 522 attempts, which is an average of 1 INT every 21.75 throws. Ridiculous. Somehow it looked to me at times that Eli lost some arm strength this year. There were some times where he under-threw receivers on deep balls and did not get enough zip on the underneath routes. I am not sure if this is true or if there were some other circumstances that made it appear this way. Another reason that offense had so many INTs and so many up and down games comes from the coaching staff. The passing offense is too complex, requiring too many on-the-fly reads and adjustments so that it is too easy for the QB and WR to not be in sync. Even yesterday, there were several times when Eli came to the sidelines talking to his WR, motioning with his hands that he should have gone outside instead of inside, and Gilbride was yelling at Hagan that he should have run his route differently. This was week 16. When exactly are the players going to master the offense? It's either because the offense that the coaches have designed is too complex or the coaches can't teach it to the players. Either way, Gilbride's offense is not as effective as it should be. Finally, I am not letting the WRs and the front office off the hook. As much as we liked the WR group early in the year, when all three, Smith, Manningham and Nicks, were humming, they sure took a dive when Smith went out. As much as I like each one, there is not enough pure, raw speed on the offense at WR, or at RB for that matter. Look at the Eagles and Packers, the teams Giants played last two weeks and both create enormous matchup problems for defenses. You can play them great for 3 quarters, but if you make one or two mistakes, they burn you for TDs. Giants rarely do that . Too much of the Giants passing offense requires perfection - the perfect route, the perfect back shoulder fade, perfect timing between the QB and WR. Look how simple the Packers passing offense was - when the Giants were playing zone or giving a cushion, they ran quick slants. When the Giants were up tight and playing pressure with their CBs, the Packers WRs would try to go deep. Simplicity is sometimes beauty - but you need the speed threat and depth at WR to pull it off and the Giants don't have that.
The worst part of the coaching is the inability and unwillingness to change things up, both over the course of the season or within a game. The Giants Fewell was given high marks for the 3-S look and for the aggressive blitzing, but he didn't know when to adjust. He did not dial back the blitzes against the Eagles, and the league caught up to the Giants 3-S look as Rodgers, last week and a few others earlier, burned it for a few big plays. The 3-S look gets the best defenders on the field, but it makes the edgy, leaning forward and aggressive, anxious to come up hard and fill the lanes on a running play. When that happens, a play action fake makes them get beat on their pass defense responsibility which is what happened to Rolle yesterday.
I don't think Coughlin is a terrible coach. In fact, I think he has a very good football mind, is a good organizer and motivator. I also admire him personally, especially for the community and charity work he has done. But I think the coordinators he has are not great: Gilbride is not creative enough and Fewell is too inexperienced and not a good game manager and adjuster. Therefore, I think Coughlin needed to be a stronger influence with them and a better manager of his coordinators for the team to succeed. He wasn't. If it's possible to change coordinators and have Coughlin a little more hands-on with his coaches to exert his influence a little more, I think Coughlin could survive. Alas, I don't think it works that way in the NFL. If the Giants should win next week and somehow sneak into the playoffs because of some help from other teams, Coughlin might survive. Unlikely.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Giants: Packers preview
Rodgers is playing. Packers are 5-1 at home. Packers apparently rediscovered their running game last week, getting 140 yards rushing against the Patriots. Packers are 8-6 and two of those losses came with Rodgers missing much of the Lions game and all of the Patriots game with that concussion. That makes this a very tough game.
Furthermore, the match ups and style of offense that the Packers play is difficult to defend and a tough match up for the Giants. Packers do a lot of spread formation with 5 WR looks. Some of them are disguised, where they come in with 4 WRs, a RB in the backfield and send the RB in motion to get to the empty backfield. There is always one receiver who is hot among these 5, so if you blitz, Rodgers can get rid of the ball quickly. If you don't blitz and rely on 4 attacking their 5 OL-men, you might be at a disadvantage and have to rely on your DL to get to the QB all by itself on every passing play. Giants, to combat this, need a big game from their DL and need to blitz intelligently. There's nothing wrong with blitzing from this set, but it leaves your DB-field 1-on-1 with every one of the Packers WRs. If that happens, one missed tackle or bad angle results in a big play. The Giants need to blitz their S and/or LB when they blitz and leave the CBs in coverage. Look for a lot of 3-S, 2-LB personnel grouping to combat the Packers passing attack and leave stopping the run up to the DL. The other side of the coin is that the Packers don't run the ball very well and if the Giants are effective at stopping the run, they will leave the Packers in 3rd and long. If that is the case, when they go to this spread formation, a blitz forces Rodgers to go to the short, hot receiver and the Giants can stop it short of the first down. There are a lot of "ifs" in that layout .... If Giants stop the run.... If they keep it 3rd and long ..... If they tackle effectively and prevent yards after catch.... If the DL has a good day. Packers are tough with dangerous WRs and a great QB. Their weaknesses on offense are a so-so OL and a poor running game. Giants have to take advantage of that to stop the Packers.
On defense, the Packers play a 3-4 with one very good LB in Matthews and a strong CB in Woodson. I think Woodson is a bit overrated. He is a gambling CB who gets away with a lot of holds when he guesses wrong and gets beaten. A double move to Mario Manningham to pick on Woodson's aggressiveness will work on Sunday. If Woodson matches up against Nicks, I would not be afraid to go after him with Nicks either. On the other side, the CB is Tramon Williams, not nearly as accomplished a player as Woodson. Gilbride and Manning's MO has been to go after the weaker side and pick on him in important spots. They don't go after him on every play, because that gives the defense a chance to adjust and reveals their strategy. Rather, they establish the advantage, but spread the ball around and pick on the weak link in the big spots of the game. Packers defense is good and will be geared to stop the Giants running game. Giants need a big game from their OL to establish the run, control the Packers front 7 and give Eli room to throw. With Steve Smith out, Boss becomes an important weapon to attack the middle of the field. Gilbride figured this out and started to use him more in the last few weeks. He remains an important weapon to occupy the Packers LBs and prevent them from attacking and blitzing too freely. Giants should not be afraid to pass first to set up the run late. Both - early in the down sequence (1st and 2nd downs) as well as early in the game to establish a lead. They have to be aggressive with the offense and put up points, because the Packers spread offense can be dangerous.
Furthermore, the match ups and style of offense that the Packers play is difficult to defend and a tough match up for the Giants. Packers do a lot of spread formation with 5 WR looks. Some of them are disguised, where they come in with 4 WRs, a RB in the backfield and send the RB in motion to get to the empty backfield. There is always one receiver who is hot among these 5, so if you blitz, Rodgers can get rid of the ball quickly. If you don't blitz and rely on 4 attacking their 5 OL-men, you might be at a disadvantage and have to rely on your DL to get to the QB all by itself on every passing play. Giants, to combat this, need a big game from their DL and need to blitz intelligently. There's nothing wrong with blitzing from this set, but it leaves your DB-field 1-on-1 with every one of the Packers WRs. If that happens, one missed tackle or bad angle results in a big play. The Giants need to blitz their S and/or LB when they blitz and leave the CBs in coverage. Look for a lot of 3-S, 2-LB personnel grouping to combat the Packers passing attack and leave stopping the run up to the DL. The other side of the coin is that the Packers don't run the ball very well and if the Giants are effective at stopping the run, they will leave the Packers in 3rd and long. If that is the case, when they go to this spread formation, a blitz forces Rodgers to go to the short, hot receiver and the Giants can stop it short of the first down. There are a lot of "ifs" in that layout .... If Giants stop the run.... If they keep it 3rd and long ..... If they tackle effectively and prevent yards after catch.... If the DL has a good day. Packers are tough with dangerous WRs and a great QB. Their weaknesses on offense are a so-so OL and a poor running game. Giants have to take advantage of that to stop the Packers.
On defense, the Packers play a 3-4 with one very good LB in Matthews and a strong CB in Woodson. I think Woodson is a bit overrated. He is a gambling CB who gets away with a lot of holds when he guesses wrong and gets beaten. A double move to Mario Manningham to pick on Woodson's aggressiveness will work on Sunday. If Woodson matches up against Nicks, I would not be afraid to go after him with Nicks either. On the other side, the CB is Tramon Williams, not nearly as accomplished a player as Woodson. Gilbride and Manning's MO has been to go after the weaker side and pick on him in important spots. They don't go after him on every play, because that gives the defense a chance to adjust and reveals their strategy. Rather, they establish the advantage, but spread the ball around and pick on the weak link in the big spots of the game. Packers defense is good and will be geared to stop the Giants running game. Giants need a big game from their OL to establish the run, control the Packers front 7 and give Eli room to throw. With Steve Smith out, Boss becomes an important weapon to attack the middle of the field. Gilbride figured this out and started to use him more in the last few weeks. He remains an important weapon to occupy the Packers LBs and prevent them from attacking and blitzing too freely. Giants should not be afraid to pass first to set up the run late. Both - early in the down sequence (1st and 2nd downs) as well as early in the game to establish a lead. They have to be aggressive with the offense and put up points, because the Packers spread offense can be dangerous.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Giants: Simms comments
I don't want to plug a show on this blog (not that this blog carries so much weight in the sports entertainment world), but I do want to relay what this week's episode of Inside the NFL on Show Time had to say about the Giants-Eagles game. First of all, the idiots spent more time discussing whether Coughlin was right or wrong yelling at punter Matt Dodge after the game than they did actually analyzing the game. Like anybody gives two hoots about that. They actually spent more time castigating Coughlin for it - poor rookie Dodge, lots of other things went wrong in the game, it wasn't just his fault. Blah, blah, blah. What a bunch of dopes. Look at it this way - here we are discussing whether Coughlin should be fired or not, in fact everyone in the league is talking about that. If the Giants had won the game, they would have virtually clinched the division title and probably a 2 seed in the playoffs, which would give them a leg up to win the title. I think the coach can be forgiven a momentary explosion for, in one moment, going from seeking a title to possibly getting fired and should be given a pass for yelling at the punter. This is especially true when he has been extraordinarily patient with him all year, kept him on the team after numerous punting mistakes, and nurtured him into a decent punter, notwithstanding this terrible mistake. The guy may have cost Coughlin millions of dollars and a place in NFL history. That's all.
After these idiots finished discussing the Coughlin yelling incident, they got to the game - discussing why and how the Giants lost. Simms said exactly what I did on this blog. This was an enormous failure of the coaching staff. When the Giants went ahead on the Boss TD by 31-10 with 8 minutes left, they should have gone back to playing a conservative defense, not rushed so much and made the Eagles earn every yard instead of giving them big chunks by gambling on exotic blitzes. Every big play the Eagles made, said Simms, was on a Giants blitz. He further said that it doesn't matter that the aggressive defense was working up until that point, it was the time in the game to dial it back. That's what coaches are supposed to do - recognize when the tempo in the game needs to be changed and when to go from an aggressive to a conservative tone, both on offense and defense. The mistakes that the players made happened when they were exposed by these blitzes.
Just so you know - Warren Sapp thinks the Giants are done.
Coughlin may survive this season. I am not saying he must get fired, although the ST coach surely has to go and it would be nice to get an OC in here with some fresh ideas. But - if the Giants lose their last two games and don't make the playoffs, there is a chance that Coughlin will not be brought back. If that happens, the question is, who should be the next coach. Cowher's name has been bandied about, but I don't like Cowher as a replacement for Coughlin. He's the same coach in a different skin. Perhaps he had marginally more success in Pittsburgh, but he's got the same attitude, the same personality and is cut out of the same cloth. If the Giants were to look for a new coach, I would not mind if John Fox come back to the Meadowlands, even though he has had some mediocre results and may have underachieved a bit since he took the Panthers on their Super Bowl run a few years ago. The coaches I would really like and may be available are: Jeff Fisher, who will probably become available in Tennessee because of the Vince Young mess or Marty Monhinweg, the OC at Philadelphia. He is very creative and has some HC experience, though it was not a very successful run. The Falcon OC, Mularkey and the Saints OC Carmichael are also very creative, but I am not sure if they are HC material.
After these idiots finished discussing the Coughlin yelling incident, they got to the game - discussing why and how the Giants lost. Simms said exactly what I did on this blog. This was an enormous failure of the coaching staff. When the Giants went ahead on the Boss TD by 31-10 with 8 minutes left, they should have gone back to playing a conservative defense, not rushed so much and made the Eagles earn every yard instead of giving them big chunks by gambling on exotic blitzes. Every big play the Eagles made, said Simms, was on a Giants blitz. He further said that it doesn't matter that the aggressive defense was working up until that point, it was the time in the game to dial it back. That's what coaches are supposed to do - recognize when the tempo in the game needs to be changed and when to go from an aggressive to a conservative tone, both on offense and defense. The mistakes that the players made happened when they were exposed by these blitzes.
Just so you know - Warren Sapp thinks the Giants are done.
Coughlin may survive this season. I am not saying he must get fired, although the ST coach surely has to go and it would be nice to get an OC in here with some fresh ideas. But - if the Giants lose their last two games and don't make the playoffs, there is a chance that Coughlin will not be brought back. If that happens, the question is, who should be the next coach. Cowher's name has been bandied about, but I don't like Cowher as a replacement for Coughlin. He's the same coach in a different skin. Perhaps he had marginally more success in Pittsburgh, but he's got the same attitude, the same personality and is cut out of the same cloth. If the Giants were to look for a new coach, I would not mind if John Fox come back to the Meadowlands, even though he has had some mediocre results and may have underachieved a bit since he took the Panthers on their Super Bowl run a few years ago. The coaches I would really like and may be available are: Jeff Fisher, who will probably become available in Tennessee because of the Vince Young mess or Marty Monhinweg, the OC at Philadelphia. He is very creative and has some HC experience, though it was not a very successful run. The Falcon OC, Mularkey and the Saints OC Carmichael are also very creative, but I am not sure if they are HC material.
Giants: Eagles III
Many football fans, when commiserating, one might even say whining, about a particularly painful loss by their team will talk about bad breaks, lucky plays by the opponents, fortune or even the alignment of the stars that took the game away from their beloved home team. You'll never hear me say that about a Giants loss (well almost never) and you will especially not hear me say that about this past week's game against the Eagles. Before we summarily dismiss that statement about luck, however it is worthwhile to spend a few minutes to define what we mean by luck in a football game. Sometimes it would be a fortuitous bounce of the ball, a blown call by an official, a remarkable play by a player who has never been known to make such a play in the past, or a play that has almost never been known to happen, is extremely rare and happens at the exact right moment in the game. One example from this current NFL season that nobody could argue with calling it lucky, might be the end of the Jaguars game a few weeks ago. The score was tied and only seconds were left in the game. The Jaguars had the ball out near midfield and decided to take one last shot into the end zone, what has become known as a Hail Mary and tossed a long ball that barely reached the goal line. The defender on the play was in perfect position, jumped and instead of trying to intercept the ball, batted it down with a strong forward motion of his arms so it would fall incomplete and send the game into overtime. Incredibly, the ball did not hit the ground, but it went directly into the arms of a Jaguar player, who caught the ball and walked into the end zone for the winning TD. Was this luck or skill? Obviously, the QB had to throw the ball a great distance to reach the end zone and the WR had to make an unbelievable catch to hold on to the batted ball. But there is no arguing that this was a lucky bounce of the ball and it occurred at a crucial moment of the game. This play had a remarkably low chance of success, say 1 in 100, and it happened. That is luck. Looking back at the Giants 2007 Super Bowl, we can say that the David Tyree helmet catch, in this context, should be considered a lucky play. Eli is not known for his scrambling and managed to elude a near sack with Patriots players getting their hands on him and Tyree was not known as a great WR, yet made a great catch on the play. Once again, the idea here is that the play had a very low probability of success, for argument sake, let's say 1 in 100, but it worked nonetheless. Being a student of probability and statistics, I assert that one could definitely argue that a similar result, despite extremely low probability of success worked for the Eagles on Sunday. There were 5 or 6 plays that all had low probability of success for the Eagles on Sunday in the 4th quarter, and every one of them, consecutively, worked. The fumble by Manningham, where no defensive player stripped him, he dropped the ball near the sideline and the ball which could just as easily have rolled out of bounds was recovered by the Eagles; the scramble by Vick, where Grant had him sacked and he ducked under his tackle to run for 30 yards; the scramble by Vick on 3rd and 10 from the 12 yard line, where he ran for 35 yards; the 65 yard pass play to Celek where Phillips went for the ball instead of the tackle; the punt return by Jackson where he dropped the ball, then picked it up and ran for a TD to end the game. All five of these plays were a result of great skill and tenacity by the Eagles, but all of them also had a relatively low probability of success. For argument's sake, if we assume a probability of success of each one of 25%, then the overall probability of all five of them succeeding is 1 in 1024. Enough probability.... my point is that the Eagles took the game from the Giants; it was skill, not luck. But they did need some good fortune to have all these somewhat unlikely events to occur, and they needed every one of them to fall into place in order to win.
The flow of the game and the foregoing analysis might even be considered to be a little misleading, because the Giants and Eagles are two teams that are built differently. the Giants are constructed more like an old school team. Classic drop back passer, power running game and an offensive philosophy that believes in balance between the pass and run, rather than relying on big plays. The Eagles, on the other hand, definitely are not your grandfather's football team. They have an offense that is completely predicated on speed, a running QB and making big plays. With that kind of team, they are not going to slowly and methodically move down the field and gradually build a big lead. Rather, they are all about the big play and are more likely to have games like they did Sunday - where they look weak at times on offense, because their speed players can't overcome the power of the defense. But then they find a little crack in the defense, a mistake, a bad angle and their speed and explosiveness takes a 5 yard play and makes it 35. They take a 20 yard play and take it all the way. The Giants defense dominated through 3 1/2 quarters, but then the mistakes they made were all capitalized on by an Eagles team that is built to do exactly that.
The flow of the game and the foregoing analysis might even be considered to be a little misleading, because the Giants and Eagles are two teams that are built differently. the Giants are constructed more like an old school team. Classic drop back passer, power running game and an offensive philosophy that believes in balance between the pass and run, rather than relying on big plays. The Eagles, on the other hand, definitely are not your grandfather's football team. They have an offense that is completely predicated on speed, a running QB and making big plays. With that kind of team, they are not going to slowly and methodically move down the field and gradually build a big lead. Rather, they are all about the big play and are more likely to have games like they did Sunday - where they look weak at times on offense, because their speed players can't overcome the power of the defense. But then they find a little crack in the defense, a mistake, a bad angle and their speed and explosiveness takes a 5 yard play and makes it 35. They take a 20 yard play and take it all the way. The Giants defense dominated through 3 1/2 quarters, but then the mistakes they made were all capitalized on by an Eagles team that is built to do exactly that.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Giants: Eagles review II
The game Sunday got out of hand so quickly and went downhill so fast that there wasn't even time to fret, be worried and have that uncomfortable, queasy in-the-pit-of-your-stomach feeling that the game was slipping away. It was over that quick. Eight minutes on the game clock and maybe 25 minutes on the wall clock. Eagles did not have long, slow torturous drives, where we could stew in our juices and be nervous. It was a few huge plays and zap... over. Like pulling off a Band-Aid. They had so many big plays, it felt like we were playing Madden 2004 (that's the one where Vick was on the cover.... you know before his little episode as a torturer and murderer of puppies and prior to his stay in Leavenworth as a convicted felon. I hear he's on the cover of PETA 2011. A real role model.) It's just now actually starting to sink in what a big opportunity the Giants missed on Sunday, and how many individual plays (not to mention coaching decisions talked about in the last blog post) that slipped through the Giants fingers, that if any one of them had played out differently, the Giants would have won. The worst errors by the Giants were: the inexplicable fumble by Manningham, not being hit or stripped, trying to get out of bounds and just dropped the ball, a play that opened the door for the Eagles; the play by Phillips to go for the INT and allow Celek to run for a TD when the score was 31-10; the mistake by Ross to lose contain and allow Vick to run for 35 yards on 3rd and 10 from the Eagles 12 when the score was 31-24; the scramble by Vick up the middle ducking under a sack by Grant. Of course, I am not including the ST failure of peeling back to block instead of staying up to recover the KO.
But you know me, ever the glass-is-half-full kind of guy, I want to spend some time analyzing what went right on Sunday in the first 3 1/2 quarters, when the Giants played well and dominated the Eagles.
Eagles did a fairly good job stopping the Giants running game. There was more running room than the first game, but still too many runs for zero or negative yardage. In the first game, the Giants RBs ran for only 39 yards and Sunday they ran for 100. The Eagles did a lot of run blitzing against the Giants, with the LBs really playing down hill, and guessing when and where the Giants were going to run. There are really only a few remedies for countering those run-blitzes: swing passes to the RB out of the backfield, pitches to the outside where he can get around the pressure or anticipate where the blitz is coming from and slant the run in the other direction. Trap plays may not even work, because the trapping G usually knocks down a DT. If there are extra LBs charging into the backfield, there's not much the OL can do. Why then doesn't every defense run-blitz much more? Because if you guess wrong and the offense throws a little dump off to a TE or RB in the area vacated by the LB, it could go for a big gain. Furthermore, if the blitzer misses the RB, he also proceeds to the second level of the defense with a good gain. O'Hara's blocking was a little spotty in the middle of the OL, which is really to be expected after missing 6 or 7 weeks. The hope is that he will get better as the weeks go along and there will be enough season left where it matters.
The pass blocking by the OL was good, there were several times where Eli had a good clean pocket to throw from. But the truth is that Eli does not get nearly enough credit for moving around a bit in the pocket when there is a rush, buying himself a few more seconds and finding an open space to throw from, which makes the OL look better. I am not saying he is a scrambler or a fast runner, but he is definitely more elusive and has better pocket presence than everyone realizes.
I thought Eli threw the ball very well Sunday, made good decisions with the ball and was very comfortable in the pocket. I usually rant about the uncreative, unimaginative Gilbride (aka Killdrive) and what a mediocre OC he is. I have to give him his due this past Sunday, the game plan was perfect. I said in my pregame analysis that the Eagles CBs were so aggressive and eager to make a play on Eli's passes, that they would bite hard on fakes and would be vulnerable to a double move. I also felt that Manningham on the outside should be the go-to-guy on that deep ball, since Nicks was more likely to be double teamed and given safety help over the top. That's exactly what Gilbride dialed up in the first half on Manningham's first TD. It was a double move, where the CB was beaten so badly, he wasn't even backpedaling or running backwards as Manningham started on the second half of his route. The CB's feet were planted, he was on his toes ready to explode forward and jump what he anticipated the route would be. Manningham ran right through him and the CB was called for illegal contact. Great call, great route, perfect pass by Eli, dropping it right into his receiver's arms. The second part of the game plan was to not be afraid of taking some deep shots down the field early, which even if they did not work would loosen up the Eagles CBs, make them play with a slightly bigger cushion and open up short routes. This worked perfectly and Hagan was wide open for several short and medium routes catching 3 balls for about 40 yards. The other component of the game plan that I liked and wrote about in my preview of the game was to attack the Eagles rookie MLB not just by running at him, but by throwing to the TE on seam routes and option routes in the middle of the field. Gilbride called several of these and Boss had a big second half, catching 3 passes for 59 yards and a big TD. The TD he caught was specifically targeting the MLB, who made a mistake on the play and did not stick with Boss, leaving him open in the back of the end zone. Boss dropped 2 or 3 balls in the first half, one right up the seam over the MLB that would have gone for 40 yards. It is interesting that the Eagles S spent a lot of time paying attention to the WRs, so the TE was often matched up against a LB. That is a big advantage for the Giants against the Eagles defense and I am sure the OC will use that if the Giants get the opportunity to play the Eagles again. I would have liked to see the Giants try some seam routes to Beckum also, who was brought in specifically for that purpose - Boss is an excellent receiver, but Beckum has more speed and might be able to break one of those seam routes all the way. Now that the Giants have started to throw more aggressively to the TE and he has made some big plays, the rest of the league will be aware of him as a threat and it will open up passing lanes and wider areas of the field for the WRs.
Aaron Ross had his best game of the year on pass defense, getting in perfect position several times and defending passes to Avanti and another WR (can't remember who) on a crossing route. JPP continues to come on - he didn't get to Vick for a sack, but knocked down 2 passes at the line of scrimmage. I can't say enough about Justin Tuck - if it's possible to be an under-the-radar, unrecognized superstar, he is it. He was making plays in the running game and in the passing game on Sunday. I particularly liked one sack of Vick, because it showed Tuck's instincts, film study and football IQ in addition to his raw skills. Tuck was coming up field on a passing play with Vick slightly outside the pocket, behind and slightly to the inside of his RT. Tuck was coming at the RT on an angle from the outside. He engaged the RT and leaned his right shoulder to the inside, making it look like he was going to take an inside route to Vick. As soon as Vick saw this, he ran out of the pocket and ran to his right. Tuck anticipated this all the way, because as soon as he had engaged the RT, he ran away from him, straight up the field on a path that intersected with where Vick would be, not where he was when Tuck started the move. Great play by Tuck. It looked to me like Fewell wasn't substituting and rotating as aggressively as he usually does in the DL and they may have gotten a little tired in the 4th qtr as a result. Truth is, Giants had 33 minutes of possession, so it wasn't the total possession in the entire game, but the fact that the Eagles had 3 possessions (almost in a row) in that 4th qtr because of the onside KO, that may have tired them out. Canty had a solid game as did Cofield and Bernard, but Osi was pretty quiet. Giants stayed with the 3 S alignment most of the game, which makes sense with the speed and athleticism that the Eagles have.Tollefson is out for a few weeks, so I am hopeful that 2nd round draft choice Linval Joseph gets activated and takes some snaps. He is a DT and Tollefson was a DE, but the Giants use Tuck a lot at DT, so it probably means that Tuck will get a few more snaps at his normal DE position. Canty can play DE also.
Because the Buccaneers and Packers both lost last Sunday, the Giants have the upper hand in the playoffs. If they beat the Packers, not an easy task on the road, they will make the playoffs. If they lose to the Packers this week, they still have an outside chance of making the playoffs, but will need some help from other teams.
But you know me, ever the glass-is-half-full kind of guy, I want to spend some time analyzing what went right on Sunday in the first 3 1/2 quarters, when the Giants played well and dominated the Eagles.
Eagles did a fairly good job stopping the Giants running game. There was more running room than the first game, but still too many runs for zero or negative yardage. In the first game, the Giants RBs ran for only 39 yards and Sunday they ran for 100. The Eagles did a lot of run blitzing against the Giants, with the LBs really playing down hill, and guessing when and where the Giants were going to run. There are really only a few remedies for countering those run-blitzes: swing passes to the RB out of the backfield, pitches to the outside where he can get around the pressure or anticipate where the blitz is coming from and slant the run in the other direction. Trap plays may not even work, because the trapping G usually knocks down a DT. If there are extra LBs charging into the backfield, there's not much the OL can do. Why then doesn't every defense run-blitz much more? Because if you guess wrong and the offense throws a little dump off to a TE or RB in the area vacated by the LB, it could go for a big gain. Furthermore, if the blitzer misses the RB, he also proceeds to the second level of the defense with a good gain. O'Hara's blocking was a little spotty in the middle of the OL, which is really to be expected after missing 6 or 7 weeks. The hope is that he will get better as the weeks go along and there will be enough season left where it matters.
The pass blocking by the OL was good, there were several times where Eli had a good clean pocket to throw from. But the truth is that Eli does not get nearly enough credit for moving around a bit in the pocket when there is a rush, buying himself a few more seconds and finding an open space to throw from, which makes the OL look better. I am not saying he is a scrambler or a fast runner, but he is definitely more elusive and has better pocket presence than everyone realizes.
I thought Eli threw the ball very well Sunday, made good decisions with the ball and was very comfortable in the pocket. I usually rant about the uncreative, unimaginative Gilbride (aka Killdrive) and what a mediocre OC he is. I have to give him his due this past Sunday, the game plan was perfect. I said in my pregame analysis that the Eagles CBs were so aggressive and eager to make a play on Eli's passes, that they would bite hard on fakes and would be vulnerable to a double move. I also felt that Manningham on the outside should be the go-to-guy on that deep ball, since Nicks was more likely to be double teamed and given safety help over the top. That's exactly what Gilbride dialed up in the first half on Manningham's first TD. It was a double move, where the CB was beaten so badly, he wasn't even backpedaling or running backwards as Manningham started on the second half of his route. The CB's feet were planted, he was on his toes ready to explode forward and jump what he anticipated the route would be. Manningham ran right through him and the CB was called for illegal contact. Great call, great route, perfect pass by Eli, dropping it right into his receiver's arms. The second part of the game plan was to not be afraid of taking some deep shots down the field early, which even if they did not work would loosen up the Eagles CBs, make them play with a slightly bigger cushion and open up short routes. This worked perfectly and Hagan was wide open for several short and medium routes catching 3 balls for about 40 yards. The other component of the game plan that I liked and wrote about in my preview of the game was to attack the Eagles rookie MLB not just by running at him, but by throwing to the TE on seam routes and option routes in the middle of the field. Gilbride called several of these and Boss had a big second half, catching 3 passes for 59 yards and a big TD. The TD he caught was specifically targeting the MLB, who made a mistake on the play and did not stick with Boss, leaving him open in the back of the end zone. Boss dropped 2 or 3 balls in the first half, one right up the seam over the MLB that would have gone for 40 yards. It is interesting that the Eagles S spent a lot of time paying attention to the WRs, so the TE was often matched up against a LB. That is a big advantage for the Giants against the Eagles defense and I am sure the OC will use that if the Giants get the opportunity to play the Eagles again. I would have liked to see the Giants try some seam routes to Beckum also, who was brought in specifically for that purpose - Boss is an excellent receiver, but Beckum has more speed and might be able to break one of those seam routes all the way. Now that the Giants have started to throw more aggressively to the TE and he has made some big plays, the rest of the league will be aware of him as a threat and it will open up passing lanes and wider areas of the field for the WRs.
Aaron Ross had his best game of the year on pass defense, getting in perfect position several times and defending passes to Avanti and another WR (can't remember who) on a crossing route. JPP continues to come on - he didn't get to Vick for a sack, but knocked down 2 passes at the line of scrimmage. I can't say enough about Justin Tuck - if it's possible to be an under-the-radar, unrecognized superstar, he is it. He was making plays in the running game and in the passing game on Sunday. I particularly liked one sack of Vick, because it showed Tuck's instincts, film study and football IQ in addition to his raw skills. Tuck was coming up field on a passing play with Vick slightly outside the pocket, behind and slightly to the inside of his RT. Tuck was coming at the RT on an angle from the outside. He engaged the RT and leaned his right shoulder to the inside, making it look like he was going to take an inside route to Vick. As soon as Vick saw this, he ran out of the pocket and ran to his right. Tuck anticipated this all the way, because as soon as he had engaged the RT, he ran away from him, straight up the field on a path that intersected with where Vick would be, not where he was when Tuck started the move. Great play by Tuck. It looked to me like Fewell wasn't substituting and rotating as aggressively as he usually does in the DL and they may have gotten a little tired in the 4th qtr as a result. Truth is, Giants had 33 minutes of possession, so it wasn't the total possession in the entire game, but the fact that the Eagles had 3 possessions (almost in a row) in that 4th qtr because of the onside KO, that may have tired them out. Canty had a solid game as did Cofield and Bernard, but Osi was pretty quiet. Giants stayed with the 3 S alignment most of the game, which makes sense with the speed and athleticism that the Eagles have.Tollefson is out for a few weeks, so I am hopeful that 2nd round draft choice Linval Joseph gets activated and takes some snaps. He is a DT and Tollefson was a DE, but the Giants use Tuck a lot at DT, so it probably means that Tuck will get a few more snaps at his normal DE position. Canty can play DE also.
Because the Buccaneers and Packers both lost last Sunday, the Giants have the upper hand in the playoffs. If they beat the Packers, not an easy task on the road, they will make the playoffs. If they lose to the Packers this week, they still have an outside chance of making the playoffs, but will need some help from other teams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)