65 replies to this topic

[Oil Can Dan]

Hopefully we can have some discussion around different elements of strategy on both sides of the ball and for both teams.

From the Giants perspective, I fully expect them to attempt to flood the middle of the field with their safetys and LBs in hopes of trying to contain Hernandez, Gronk and Welker. So, I think they're going to have to have their CBs playing man on the WRs. Therefore, I think that Branch on Webster is a critical matchup. I don't think much of Webster although he has played at a high level for stretches at a time, however I suspect that Brady and crew are going to tempt him with pump fakes and double moves. And I bet it works.

This goes without saying, but Wilfork vs Baas is a huge mismatch for the Giants. They're going to have to provide help from Snee or Booth as much as they can, but I *think* the Pats move him around a bit (do they?) and there's no way they can double him all game. I think the Giants are going to have to move Eli around to avoid the mass destruction that VW causes, and I don't see them running in the A gaps so long as VW's playing noseguard. IMO Baas is not very athletic on his feet but he's servicable, but this is a serious problem area for NY.

Finally, it's been said a lot on some threads here already but I really think the Pats are going to hammer the Giants by running the ball down their throats. It makes too much sense on two levels:

1. Limite exposure of the Pats D by keeping them on the sideline
2. Negate one of the biggest advantages the Giants have (speed on the edges)

I will say that while the stats don't really back it up, I think the Giants rushing D is alright. But, as per the above I really think they're going to really gameplanning to stop that intermediate passing game. The beauty of having one of the all time great QBs who is very good at running the no-huddle is that he should be able to hammer the Giants D strictly based on the package.

I don't know the Pats well enough to know about the various RBs and who 'the man' is, but the group as whole ought to have a big day. I know Ridley was in the dog house for the fumble vs Denver, but any chance he gets some action? I liked what I saw from him the few times I saw him in the regular season...

[Mystic Merlin]

Wilfork is indeed moved around quite a bit, whether it is the nose, the three-technique, or the five-technique. I've said it many times already, and I'll say it again: the Giants OL is the weakest trench unit of the four. The numbers bear it out (culminating an in inhuman amount of pressures vs. SF - like 29 in 60 dropbacks, 10 of them by the now-awful David Diehl), as do the eyes. Eli is getting props for demonstrating impressive toughness for a reason. I think Mark Anderson is a problematic matchup for Diehl, and I think it's going to hurt the Giants. I think every single one of the Giants OL are potential weak links, but Baas and Diehl are the glaring ones to me. That said, the Pats need continued contributions from Love - who has become a starting caliber DT - Warren, and Ellis, not to mention Deaderick. I don't see the Giants having much success running the football against that front seven, which - according to the Giants OL coach - has looked like a top 10 front in the postseason. I believe this matchup favors the Patriots, and I'd be far more worried about the Giants OL vs the Pats DL than the Pats OL vs the Giants DL (a wildly unpopular opinion, I am sure).

I am extremely worried about the Pats' nickel defense, even though I like many of the individual matchups up front (Anderson-Diehl, Ninkovich-McKenzie, Wilfork-Anyone). They do not have an answer for the Giants WR on a man-to-man level (does anyone?), but - worse - they're not a very good pass rushing team out of the nickel, paradoxically. I suspect they will do literally everything they can to stop the 20+ yarders, which probably means a lot of Cover-4, or at least a safety 20-25 yards off the LOS every play. They need to keep the ball in front of them, forcing Eli and Co. to go 8-10 plays to score, and hoping to catch Eli with a few wrinkles and counting on their red-zone D to come up big like it has all season. They can't match up with the Giants passing game, so they need to make it a battle of the red zone. If Cruz and Nicks are running wild for 20+ catch and runs, it will be a long game, and BB knows it. Hopefully they get a few timely sacks, or take advantage of a misread by Eli, or simply show enough resistance inside the 25-30 yard line to force a few FG. They aren't going to force 4-5 punts in this game.

Offensively, they absolutely, positively must make the no-huddle work. They're the best you'll see at it, and it has to be a mainstay if they are going to win. Why? Well, it goes beyond tempo (although that is important and they are a dangerous football team when the game is moving at a very fast pace - they snowball possessions very well); I think it could take the Giants out of their preferred strategy, which is to cycle in DL in waves. Want to keep their three-DE (or even four-DE) look off the field? Then don't let them substitute. Conversely, if you like your odds of running against such a look, then keep THAT look on the field. In any case, dictate matchups - the Pats do not substitute a lot, but the Giants love to. Don't let them play around with Kiwi, or rotate Joseph with Osi. Don't, in other words, let them do what they are comfortable doing, namely keeping their DL fresh and constantly fucking with the offensive line (I think the mental stress of having to prepare and adjust to like 4 different possible DL is an underrated problem posed by the Giants' approach); make their guys sweat it out for three plus quarters, to the point where - hopefully - that indoor environment gets to them by crunch time.

I will say that I loved what they did against the Ravens. I loved that they attacked the nickel on the ground when the right personnel was on the field (i.e., Ngata out). I'm sure the Giants will go back to the well with the big nickel (Rolle/Phillips/Grant), so they'll probably need to make some say running against it. Get some value there - it might not change the Giants approach (they aren't running base personnel against the Pats), but - and especially in the no-huddle - those can be nice, easy yards. Popping off some 8-10 yarders settles down that DL a bit and, more simply, muddles the defensive posture - if they realize they can't just stop the run on form, it will force them to inch the LB/S up and not sell out flooding the middle of the field. The Pats rely heavily on those between-the-numbers 10-15 yard strikes, and tempering the passivity of the Giants LBs vis-a-vis the run could make those throws (over the LB, under the S) a little easier for Brady. All of this assumes, of course, that the Giants run a ton of cover-2 - I cannot imagine them manning up in the slot and against the TEs. The OL/DL battle is the most highly-billed matchup, but - more than anything - Tom needs to hit his throws. His effort vs. BAL will not be enough; he needs to be great if the Patriots want to win this game, because the Giants will move the ball and score points, and this isn't a game where you can sit around 13-17 points through three quarters and hope to win, IMO.

I am having difficulty deciding a winner - they're two talented, well-coached, tough teams, and I am not sure if this game will come down to one or two players, unless Brady or Eli play particularly great or bad. Whoever wins will have one because of the sum of the individual battles and moments over the course of the game, as cliche as that sounds. Everyone knows what both teams like to do - even if we don't all agree on what both teams are good or bad at - and as such I think it'll be a serious battle without many surprises from a strategy standpoint. I'm sure someone will make a horrible mistake or two at an inopportune time, and we'll be bemoaning or celebrating (depending on your allegiances) them Monday morning.

[PedroKsBambino]

I don't know the Pats well enough to know about the various RBs and who 'the man' is, but the group as whole ought to have a big day. I know Ridley was in the dog house for the fumble vs Denver, but any chance he gets some action? I liked what I saw from him the few times I saw him in the regular season...

The Ochocinco activation/sitting will get a lot more discussion, but I think the Ridley one is more interesting, and more important. BB is obsessive about ball-control issues, and at the same time I (and I'd guess most Pats observers) feel that Ridley is the only back they have who is dynamic and truly capable of a game-changing performance. Given that the Pats may well want to be able to run to counter a nickel/dime scheme, I really do wonder if he isn't active...if nothing else, as insurance in case Law Firm gets hurt early or is ineffective.

Perhaps related to Ridley is Faulk's status---he's likely active only as the backup to Woodhead in the no-huddle. If you activate Ridley, that's another spot you need to think about.

[Mooch]

I would like to see the Patriots run some 1 WR/2 TE/2 RB formations in the no-huddle against that nickel defense. Send the TEs into the seams to draw the safeties, drag Welker across the field and release 2 RBs into the middle of the field, particularly Woodhead who can be a tough cover out of the backfield. That way, Brady can run "check with me" runs, drawing the TEs in to block or out into pass patterns. It seems to me that this type of strategy will give Brady multiple options and mismatches, including a couple of safety valves against a strong Giant pass rush.

[Harry Hooper]

If you're the Giants, you want to beat the snot out of Wes Welker. Knock him out of the game if possible. Early on, the Giants will use the Jets' extra DBs defensive gameplan from last season's playoff game vs. the Pats. They will dare Brady to audible into running plays. As the game goes on, they will use more blitzes.

On offense, Eli will throw a lot to his RBs early to tire out the pass rush, and then move on to hooking up with his WRs and abusing the Pats secondary.

The Pats offense will come up with BJGE running the ball a bit, but he will become the secret weapon of the attack and catch more passes than any game this season. Brady will throw a lot of quick release passes to Hernandez and BJGE/Woodhead. BOB will use some called rollouts for Brady to frustrate the pass rush further and buy time for some deeper throws downfield.

On defense, I'm guessing BB put it to the D-line all week in practice: you are the guys who are going to win the game for us. He's revving up guys like Ellis with visions of going out as a SB champ. A la SB XXXVI, everyone needs to swarm to the ball and make the Giants receivers pay for every completion.

[Shelterdog]

If you're the Giants, you want to beat the snot out of Wes Welker. Knock him out of the game if possible. Early on, the Giants will use the Jets' extra DBs defensive gameplan from last season's playoff game vs. the Pats. They will dare Brady to audible into running plays. As the game goes on, they will use more blitzes.

Every single team tries to beat the snot out of Wes Welker every week. It never works. What specifically would you have the Giants do to make it work?

I don't see the Giants using 6 or 7 defensive backs-their sixth and seventh defensive backs suck and they really don't play that way ever. I assume the Giants play more or less the same way they did in week 9 and stick in their "big nickel."

[crystalline]

Only the Redskins (twice) and Philly have kept the Giants to under 20 pts this season. (SF and MIA held them to exactly 20).
What did those teams do on defense? I didn't watch any of them.

Schatz at FO had this to say about the second Redskins game:

Aaron Schatz: At halftime, the Redskins offensive line is getting surprisingly strong push on runs up the middle against the Giants. They're not doing quite so well on outside runs -- I think they'll want to stay away from those in the second half. The Giants are not getting good coverage and it looks like they've benched Prince Amukamara. As far as the Giants offense goes, Tanier is correct. Eli Manning has terrible numbers right now (7-of-17, 77 yards, interception), but he's throwing the ball fine. The Giants have made a couple of egregious drops and have run a couple of really poorly-blocked screens, and the Redskins also have a couple of nice passes defensed, including one that turned into a tip-drill interception.
http://www.footballo...es-line-week-15

And obviously the playoffs were still on the line for them in that game, so they should have been motivated.

One reason for poor NYG offense that game was interceptions because of tips: to me that seems like a lot of luck. We probably won't get great coverage on their receivers, but the comments on the Giants' DL bode well for us.

In the Philly game, the Giants won the turnover battle (1 INT 1 fumble vs 3 INT 0 fumble), both teams matched on penalties: 5-6 for ~40 yards, and there was no major special teams swing - no big kick returns. So maybe there's more to say about strategy in that game. Looks like one thing Philly did is stuff the Giants' run game.

Edited by crystalline, 02 February 2012 - 02:12 PM.

[twothousandone]

I have two young boys, so I'll have to tell them one thing to watch on each side of the ball. When NE has it. . .

From the Giants perspective, I fully expect them to attempt to flood the middle of the field with their safetys and LBs in hopes of trying to contain Hernandez, Gronk and Welker. So, I think they're going to have to have their CBs playing man on the WRs. Therefore, I think that Branch on Webster is a critical matchup. I don't think much of Webster although he has played at a high level for stretches at a time, however I suspect that Brady and crew are going to tempt him with pump fakes and double moves. And I bet it works.

Double moves take time, so I'm going to say how the OL keeps the Giants pass rush at bay is the key. (But isn't it always?) but there's this:

Don't, in other words, let them do what they are comfortable doing, namely keeping their DL fresh and constantly fucking with the offensive line (I think the mental stress of having to prepare and adjust to like 4 different possible DL is an underrated problem posed by the Giants' approach); make their guys sweat it out for three plus quarters, to the point where - hopefully - that indoor environment gets to them by crunch time.

which is more than I knew, but does the no-huddle help them protect Brady? Call that 1A on what I'm watching. I think they've improved all year at protection, and Vollmer's return may really help, even if it's only on the fatigue front. If they pressure Brady, it'll be a long evening, because they'll be able to shut off the middle.

When the Giants have the ball

the Giants OL is the weakest trench unit of the four.

Watch for Wilfork to get into the backfield and wreak havoc. If he doesn't, I fear Manning picks the DBs apart.

I think there is a very good chance the Pats can protect Brady and Wilfork goes crazy. I think it'll be a big win for the Patriots.

[dbn]

1. Limite exposure of the Pats D by keeping them on the sideline

I agree with most of your post, but not this part. Teams get (more or less) the same number of possessions. Working the clock means both teams get fewer possessions, and thus each one is more important, with flukey things like turnovers or big penalties having heightened relevance. I think the Patriots are a better team, so I want the flukey things (i.e., randomness) to matter less.

[twothousandone]

Don't let them play around with Kiwi, or rotate Joseph with Osi. Don't, in other words, let them do what they are comfortable doing, namely keeping their DL fresh and constantly fucking with the offensive line (I think the mental stress of having to prepare and adjust to like 4 different possible DL is an underrated problem posed by the Giants' approach)

I read up a bit more on this front. including this
http://espn.go.com/n...ne-heart-giants and this

http://www.onlinesen...2012-02-01.html and this

http://www.nypost.co...Yu4sl4Acxzkqh4J

As I think about it more, it's not sacks that I am worried about, so long as they are not indicative of the overall Giants pash rush. If they switch personnel, get a mismatch or confuse the Patriots on an assignment, Brady can eat the ball. NE can easily survive that, so long as the next pass play (and the three after that) they give Brady the time he needs. So long as he doesn't get crushed, Brady can take five or six sacks, and the damage is only slightly worse then an incomplete.

Further, if Brady can be confident on getting time, that's when slower developing plays can turn into big plays -- deep routes, double moves, waiting on Welker getting all the way across the middle, giving Gronkowski time to outrun whoever is covering him. Tuck comes in strong and takes Brady down an a play? No big deal. So long as three out of every times he drops back, the OL gives Brady the time to find the guy he wants. So, hopefully, if sacks do come, it's because someone got free immediately, Brady can protect the ball, and they get 'em on the next play.

(But, damn, I'm now a bit worried.)

[Super Nomario]

As I think about it more, it's not sacks that I am worried about, so long as they are not indicative of the overall Giants pash rush. If they switch personnel, get a mismatch or confuse the Patriots on an assignment, Brady can eat the ball. NE can easily survive that, so long as the next pass play (and the three after that) they give Brady the time he needs. So long as he doesn't get crushed, Brady can take five or six sacks, and the damage is only slightly worse then an incomplete.

This makes me think of the first Pats / Jets game this year. The Jets got to Brady at times (four sacks), but not consistently enough to affect Brady. He finished the game 24/33 for 321 yards, 1 TD, and 1 INT, numbers that are even more impressive when you consider a) they were against one of the best pass defenses in the league, and b) the one INT was a ball Hernandez bobbled in the end zone and deflected right to a Jet. The Pats ended up hanging 30 on the Jets. I wouldn't be surprised by a similar performance against the Giants.

[dynomite]

Lots to cover, so I'll just start with two facets I'm looking forward to: when the Pats run outside, and when they play-action.

The Giants have an incredibly disciplined defensive unit, but they can get caught in weak positions: they're strongest in a base defense, when the defensive lineman are winning at the point of attack and allowing their weaker units (LBs & DBs) to cover at full strength. This is even more important in a "big nickel" scheme, when you're either down an LB and coverage responsibilities can get confused.

To get a sense of how the Pats respond to similar defenses, I went back to this season's Jets games and looked at the "Belichick Breakdowns" with Zo. The Jets are obviously a different defense than the Giants -- and especially this season had a less effective defensive line -- but play some of the same schemes as the Giants.

Here's game 1 (@ NE): http://www.patriots....22-d8e1da9532c1

Here's game 2 (@ NY): http://www.patriots....cc-c08d06eb8536

A couple of things to notice in terms of run blocking:
- Welker is one of the best run-blocking WRs in the league. Again and again, outside runs were made possible because Welker was able to take his man out of the play and allow Law Firm time to run a play as it was designed.
- Gronk is one of the best run-blocking TEs in the league. (Surprise surprise!) This could be particularly important if he's matched up up against an undersized DB, exposing the Giants if the Patriots can exploit that blocking mismatch.
- Law Firm is an incredibly disciplined runner. Unlike someone like Maroney, who would start stutter-stepping or make a cut too early and slow down the play, Law Firm trusts that his blocks will develop and runs where he is supposed to run.
- Notice the direct snap to Law Firm in the first Jets game. Plays like that could be especially effective against the Giants -- power rushers like Tuck often rely upon an explosive burst upfield at the snap to get into the backfield. If the ball goes right to the RB, though, and the lineman uses Tuck's momentum to take him further upfield, Tuck might take himself out of the play before it even begins.

A couple of things to notice in terms of play-action:
- Welker is deceptively fast. On one play, Brady noticed a safety bite on the play-action and threw to Welker, who had gotten behind the DBs. Welker was only a step ahead of Revis, but was able to beat him to the ball (and stay ahead of him for another 40 yards). Sometimes you don't need Randy Moss to "stretch the field."
- So much of this offense runs through Gronk. First, as we all know, he's riGronkulous as a reciever and blocker (and Spanish speaker). Second, he creates havoc with coverage schemes, especially in the red zone, drawing double (and sometimes triple) coverage. In the second Jets game, the Pats simply ran plays to the other side of the field (away from Gronk), exploiting the resulting one-on-one matchups and lack of safety support. Third, the safeties often guess run/pass based upon what Gronk does -- if he blocks, they assume run, and if he goes out for a pattern, they assume pass. This is evident on the long pass to Welker -- Gronk motions and blocks the NT as Brady fakes to Law Firm, and the entire defense freezes.

[Oil Can Dan]

I really have to think that the Pats are going to do whatever they have to in order to eliminate the whole "hit Brady and win the game" thing. If that means 3/5 step drops, running the ball, moving TB out of the pocket, whatever. I am definitely betting on the under on Giants sacks, regardless of what it is.

[RedOctober3829]

I really have to think that the Pats are going to do whatever they have to in order to eliminate the whole "hit Brady and win the game" thing. If that means 3/5 step drops, running the ball, moving TB out of the pocket, whatever. I am definitely betting on the under on Giants sacks, regardless of what it is.

Brady released the ball in under 3 seconds over half the time against the Ravens. I don't think the pass rush is really going to affect Brady unless the secondary locks down the Patriots WRs and forces Brady to hold the ball longer.

[Shelterdog]

So long as he doesn't get crushed, Brady can take five or six sacks, and the damage is only slightly worse then an incomplete.

I can't say I'm with you. For starters, if they get five or six sacks they probably are getting real pressure on him another 10-15 times. Second if you get sacked six times there's a decent chance you fumble one or two of them. (Sacks lead to fumbles about 18% of the time). Third you do lose yardage, often enough to kill a drive.

It would be really weird if Brady got sacked five or six times and the pats won. Not impossible, but odd.

[mwonow]

Some folks like to say that games are won and lost in the trenches. Others - generally, those with really good QBs - like to believe that the games are won and lost in the air.

I like NE on both fronts. I think our O-line (especially if Vollmer and Solder both play) can more than hold its own against the Giants d-line, and especially, when the Pats go no-huddle, keeping either the four d-ends or the base personnel on the field longer than the Giants want to keep them there. Pats should be able to run, and as noted above, the quick-release passing game will make it hard for rushers to get through to Brady. On ths other side of the ball, I like the way our d-line is playing, and don't think Bass Diehl & co. is all that good; I think our D-line will push through the Giants blockers. That means not much running for NY, unless they find a way to get to the corner (particularly, the corner that Anderson is "setting").

Through the air, Eli has had a great year, but I'll still take TB & co if it comes down to a passing game. The Pats may not be able to cover much, but if they get a good push up front, even the completions will tend to be short (assuming limited YAC, which might be a stretch to assume, the way the Pats DBs tackle). Unless Brady gets swamped the way he did in "that last SB," he should be able to complete passes against any D...

[abty]

Want to know the Giants' kryptonite? Besides New Orleans? A running QB and a potent/talented D. The Skins have a defense. I don't care about stats. Same for Eagles. They have talent but they are flakes. With that said, they are teams built to give the Giants fits. Kind of like the Blue Jays used to always give the Sox fits during their 2007-2009 seasons IIRC. Sometimes, it happens - the better team just can't beat the weaker opponent. If you recall, in the G.B playoff game, Rodgers by himself converted 5 3rd downs into first downs by running. Alex Smith also was a bit mobile. IIRC, our worst games on defense were vs qb's who run because THEY are the reason the Giants blow chances to leave the field on 3rd down.

Brady doesn't run which allows more opps for our pass rush to get turnovers/etc. This is way Giant fans are confident. God, I hate scrambling qb's. I knew Vince Young would beat us, that asshole. It's like our defense freezes and springs pop out of their heads. It's awful. Tom Brady wants ring #4? Put him on roller skates. He'll win, even if Gronk is legless. It won't matter. /2 cents.

Edited by abty, 02 February 2012 - 06:35 PM.

[abty]

Regarding Giants' O-Line

As for the Giants' O.L, it isn't anywhere near as effective as 2007 and it does concern me. With that said, the Giants' are fully aware that their game falls apart if Eli has to run around like he did vs San Fran. So you will see more blockers to counter the Diehl revolving door and the Baas revolving door. The Giants will look to establish the run early but go for a home run early. Their goal is to get an early lead and then eat the clock on short passes, run and 1/2 home run plays. Then let their defense do their job. So my concern as a Giants fan isn't so much protection for Eli as much as how they perform in the red zone and in their first possessions.

One Thing To Note

The Giants survived a 'worst case' game where their O.L dies and survived, albeit with some luck. The thing to recall, though, is that the Giants average 27 or so points out of their stadium and only the 49'ers were really able to shut them down recently. They are the best run defense I've seen in years and the best in the NFL this year - and the Giants still scored 17. Did the first turnover help? Sure. But how many teams pull off that TD in their stadium? Not too many. So, taking that experience into consideration, I think this S.B will show them adapt to what they experienced (more emphasis on QB protection) and, due to weaker secondary coverage, they will have more points and extended drives which will lead to, hopefully, less of Eli getting the shit beaten out of him.

With a weaker defense, if you give the Giants even one turnover, you can expect to give up at least 24. If your cover team and pass rush is not primo, there will be problems for that team. The problem for the Giants, though, is they cannot convert in the Red Zone as much as their talent should allow for. This is why I hate the talk of "Giants by 14+". Bullshit. Not unless they are 2/2 in their first possessions (td's) and get 3 first half turnovers. While I have faith in my team they aren't the 99 Rams and the Patriots' D isn't the 2011 Packers.

[Edited rest/deleted rest as it's hard to ariculate. Will put more research/thought into it]

Edited by abty, 02 February 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[SemperFidelisSox]

Rex Grossman had -1 yards rushing in that Week 15 win.

[dynomite]

Want to know the Giants' kryptonite? Besides New Orleans? A running QB and a potent/talented D. The Skins have a defense. I don't care about stats. Same for Eagles. They have talent but they are flakes.

Four teams scored more than 30 points against the Giants this year:

49 - Saints
38 - Packers
36 - Seahawks
34 - Cowboys

Only the Seahawks could truly be described as having a "running" quarterback, and 1) in that game their two QBs (Jackson/Whitehurst) only combined for ~ 20 yards on 6 carries, and 2) theirs was the weakest 30+, as the final 7 of those 36 points came on a last-minute TAINT.


I'd argue there are more important commonalities among those games. For instance, two these games were played on Astro turf (Saints & Cowboys) and two were played on FieldTurf (Packers & Seahawks). The Giants defense is a lot of things, but it isn't fast (Corey Webster's 40 time: 4.55) or built for a track meet (not many power pass rushes are). Offenses with good QBs and WRs have torn up this defense on turf.

Here's hoping the trend holds.

[abty]

Rex Grossman had -1 yards rushing in that Week 15 win.

But he time traveled 2 td's. Pay attention!

[Edit]. I explain the purpose for my post in my response to Dynomite (below).

Edited by abty, 02 February 2012 - 07:28 PM.

[abty]

Four teams scored more than 30 points against the Giants this year:

49 - Saints
38 - Packers
36 - Seahawks
34 - Cowboys

Only the Seahawks could truly be described as having a "running" quarterback *, and 1) in that game their two QBs (Jackson/Whitehurst) only combined for ~ 20 yards on 6 carries, and 2) theirs was the weakest 30+, as the final 7 of those 36 points came on a last-minute TAINT.


I'd argue there are more important commonalities among those games. For instance, two these games were played on Astro turf (Saints & Cowboys) and two were played on FieldTurf (Packers & Seahawks). The Giants defense is a lot of things, but it isn't fast (Corey Webster's 40 time: 4.55) or built for a track meet (not many power pass rushes are). Offenses with good QBs and WRs have torn up this defense on turf **.

Here's hoping the trend holds.

* You guys are too focused on stats. I see why, but don't worry about stats in this argument because I am not literally saying it's the main kryptonite. I'm not saying 'rushing qb's beat us by rushing'. I was just trying to provide another less talked about variable that, over the years, has been a pet peeve of mine. It was sort of meant to make you laugh and make you consider something new, that's all. If you run, as a QB, from left to right, not for yardage, you will find our CB's will get exposed and that our pass rush goes in the toilet bowl. While it seems obvious, you must consider that all the analysis on the Giants' d is 'pass rush this, pass rush that'. Well, if I had to find a way to beat the Giants, I'd have my QB follow what Rodgers did in the post-season (steal first downs and force them to chase you/wait for blown coverage). Is the Giants' defense improved? Sure, absolutely. But a non mobile QB won't get as much out of their weaknesses as a lesser talented mobile QB who can exploit poor coverage when it comes around.

** True, turf + great QB + great WR's = death for the Giants this year. I have explained why I feel the defense is different than before but people will either believe to see it or not. Sunday will tell the story. It's been documented in other threads.
As for the Brees game, well, at home they averaged 41 PPG and our defense was in shambles, not healthy and had rookies/etc who were just NOT ready for prime time. That was a miracle to not give up 56 points. As for the game that mattered against the Packers, without Rodgers scrambling for 5 first downs, and without the refs, they would have had one of the worst outings on offense in many years for them most likely. Patriots scored 38 vs us in 2007 - meant nothing when the tema, with Spagnolo, figured it out and had more confidence. People laugh at the idea of confidence but the defense talked about it then and they did so during this run. I see a different team. So did Rodgers and Smith. When it mattered. We'll see if they continue *that* trend.

Edited by abty, 02 February 2012 - 07:40 PM.

[dynomite]

Edit: Nevermind. I'm not quite sure what you're arguing, and I'm fine letting it go.

Edited by dynomite, 02 February 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[abty]

Not arguing but I know why you are confused. Hence, the edits

Just saying that QB's who leave the pocket a bit more can bite us in the butt more than people here may realize. That's all. I just used Rodgers, in the post-season, as the prime example. He ran for like 5 first downs on *3rd* down. It can be the difference between beating us and losing by a few points. Sort of like Flacco blowing a chance to convert on a first down, with 15+ seconds left, when it was just a yard away. Our pass rush can be potent but it can be exposed by more than just throwing to top flight wr's (like Brees in N.O or Rodgers in the regular season against us). That's all.

[Freddy Linn]

As for the game that mattered against the Packers, without Rodgers scrambling for 5 first downs, and without the refs, they would have had one of the worst outings on offense in many years for them most likely.

Notwithstanding the fact that running is a key element of Rodgers' game, you don't have to oversell this point. They scored 10 or less three times last year and were 10th in scoring.
The Lions held them to 3 points.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Its been a long time since I posted on Sosh, but this looks like a good thread for coming back.

On offense, I expect us to mainly run the no-huddle out of the standard 2 WR/2TE set. Its noteworthy that we actually deviated from this strategy quite a bit during the November game against the Giants, especially in the first three quarters. We subbed Solder (23 snaps at TE!) for Hernandez a lot in order to help the run game and give Brady an extra blocker. We also went with the 3 TE package a number of times.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, we scored three points in those first three quarters. As Mystic Merlin notes, our substitutions allowed the Giants Dline to substitute as well , keeping them fresh. Perhaps more importantly, we allowed the Giants to dictate the game and get us away from what we do best - throw the ball relentlessly, out of the no huddle, with pass patterns using four receivers. If you look at the three turnovers Brady committed in the first three quarters of that game (the two INTs and the sack/fumble in the 3rd quarter), the common denominator is this: Bad tempo on those drives because of substitutions, then plays in which we protect with seven (often including Solder at TE) and only put three guys into the pattern, forcing Brady to either force balls into coverage or to hold the ball too long. That's not our strength and we paid for it.

I think the lesson is that we're going to win this game by doing what we do best on offense, which is playing uptempo, throwing the ball fairly relentlessly, and applying pressure on the defense by putting at least four into every pattern. I'm all for maintaining a run threat and using the run strategically against certain personnel packages (especially when the Giants stack their line with the four DEs ). But I think the idea that we want to run the ball down their throats is completely wrongheaded, as is the notion that we should max protect because the Giants are so good at rushing the passer. Instead, we want to run enough to keep them honest, then we want to see whether a generally weak secondary that has some serious questions at the nickel/dime positions can stop one of the best passing offenses in NFL history. We should rely on play action, a number of quick drops, and our TEs chipping the DEs off the line every once in a while. If their DL still beats us up in the passing game, that's football.

On the defensive side of the ball, I expect us to have a somewhat inverse strategy from a personnel standpoint - lots of sub packages to invite the Giants to run on us, but with front personnel (Mayo and Spikes as the LBs, at least two DTs on the field at all times) that gives us a fighting chance against the run even if undermanned. This has been a popular strategy over the years for BB when facing Peyton and the Colts. You just accept that the other team is going to get some run mismatches on early downs and you hope that you still blow up plays often enough to make them convert a lot of third downs. Thankfully, the Giants are pretty bad at running between the tackles and in short yardage. Plus, while Eli's is great at making plays down the field, he doesn't have his brother's insane ability to read defenses and deliver accurate short passes. Peyton could beat this strategy by just converting every single 3rd and 4 that we threw at him with robotic efficiency. I'm willing to bet that Eli can't do the same thing.

As far as pass defense goes, the most basic look we will have to do deal with is a 3 WR/1 TE set in which Hakeem Nicks is usually lined up alone on the weak side, Cruz is in the slot on the strong side, and Manningham is on the outside. Nicks alone on Arrington Island presents a basic problem - how often do we give help? My guess is that the answer is "often." We may mix up the degree to which a S slides over, and we may have some looks in which we give help underneath instead and allow the CB to play off, but I imagine there won't be that many plays on which there's no help at all. We've seen how that movie ends.

While Nicks is a great player, Cruz is the guy that really stirs the drink for the Giants - he has the most complex option reads to make in their offense and will have the greatest opportunity for mismatches. The 49ers game really stood out in this regard. In the first half, the Niners put Carlos Rogers, not a very physical guy, over Cruz in the slot and didn't give him much help. Cruz proceeded to rape Rogers for the next 30 minutes to the tune of 8/122. In the second half, the Niners changed up, putting either the more physical Chris Culliver or a LB like Patrick Willis directly over Cruz to bust him off the line and giving more dedicated S help over the top, basically another player with more responsibility to specifically read Cruz on each play. Cruz caught two balls for 18 yards on the second drive of the 3rd quarter and then was completely shut out for the rest of the half and OT, with no catches on five targets. Taking Cruz completely out of the game was critical to stoning the Giants' offense the rest of the way (obviously, swamping Eli on every snap helped too). I think there's probably something to learn from that strategy, even if our safeties aren't nearly as good as those of the 49ers. One possibility is a variation on the way we covered Antonio Gates in the Chargers game this year, which involved an LB jamming/rerouting at the line and then Chung with man-to-man coverage responsibility further down the field. If we play the nickel package in which McCourty is at safety in the middle of the field, he might also play that role.

Giving safety help if Nicks is alone on the weak side and bracketing Cruz has a couple implications. First, there are going to be a number of plays in which Manningham is covered one-on-one on the outside. I can live with that. Second, with only two LBs to begin with and one helping on Cruz in various ways, it opens things up for checkdowns to the RB. This was a big problem for us in that same Chargers game, with Matthews and Tolbert combining for 15 catches and picking up a number of key 3rd down conversions, usually with Brandon Spikes or Dane Fletcher a step too slow. The Giants' backs aren't as good in the receiving game but they'll still hurt us somewhat: The 49ers applied some similar coverage concepts as those discussed here, had Navarro Bowman and Patrick Willis on the field, and Giant RBs still caught 11 passes. Ultimately, however, I'm willing to live with these matchups. If they can march up and down the field by running the ball, throwing difficult sideline passes to Mario Manningham, and relying on Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs to make plays in the passing game - three things that they're not particularly good at - then you just shake your head and tip your hat.

Edited by Morgan's Magic Snowplow, 02 February 2012 - 08:39 PM.

[abty]

Notwithstanding the fact that running is a key element of Rodgers' game, you don't have to oversell this point. They scored 10 or less three times last year and were 10th in scoring.
The Lions held them to 3 points.

Sorry, I am confused. I am talking about the Packers. What team did the Lions hold to 3 points? Also, regarding Rogers and his running game, he had 2 30+ rush yard games and 1 50+ yard and 1 60 yard rush game. The 60+ yard game (66) was vs the Giants in the post-season and one 33+ was vs the Giants in the reg season. That's why I say - they are vulnerable to a more mobile QB. They used to have issues with WR's and QB's just sitting back and throwing. That was when their defense was in shambles. The one hole they didn't plug is their inability to protect against a 3rd and long scramble converting into a first down. It's was one thing I was concerned Alex Smith would exploit. Just a random factoid. Nothing more.

Edited by abty, 03 February 2012 - 12:20 AM.

[BigSoxFan]

Morgan....post more. That was a great synopsis.

[Freddy Linn]

Sorry, I am confused. I am talking about the Packers. What team did the Lions hold to 3 points? Also, regarding Rogers and his running game, he had 2 30+ rush yard games and 1 50+ yard and 1 60 yard rush game. The 60+ yard game (66) was vs the Giants in the post-season and one 33+ was vs the Giants in the reg season. That's why I say - they are vulnerable. Just a random factoid.

As for the game that mattered against the Packers, without Rodgers scrambling for 5 first downs, and without the refs, they would have had one of the worst outings on offense in many years for them most likely.

The Packers lost to the Lions 7-3, in a dome, last year. They beat the Jets 9-0. They scored 14 against the Chiefs this year, and had 7 points until the two-minute warning. The effort against the Giants wasn't one of their worst outings in many years.


Edit: added the one of

Edited by Freddy Linn, 03 February 2012 - 12:31 AM.

[Super Nomario]

I think the lesson is that we're going to win this game by doing what we do best on offense, which is playing uptempo, throwing the ball fairly relentlessly, and applying pressure on the defense by putting at least four into every pattern. I'm all for maintaining a run threat and using the run strategically against certain personnel packages (especially when the Giants stack their line with the four DEs ). But I think the idea that we want to run the ball down their throats is completely wrongheaded, as is the notion that we should max protect because the Giants are so good at rushing the passer. Instead, we want to run enough to keep them honest, then we want to see whether a generally weak secondary that has some serious questions at the nickel/dime positions can stop one of the best passing offenses in NFL history. We should rely on play action, a number of quick drops, and our TEs chipping the DEs off the line every once in a while. If their DL still beats us up in the passing game, that's football.

I completely agree with this. I think the run-first approach plays into the Giants' hands; even if the Pats are fairly successful running, running the ball a lot on early downs is more likely to put the Pats in third-and-longs where the Giants can pin their ears back in the pass rush and run stunts and games to confuse the Pats' o-line. I see the Pats using the run like they did last week, running out of the hurry-up when they feel like they have a mismatch they can exploit. But fundamentally the Pats are a short passing team. If the Giants are taking steps to take that away, the Pats should adjust, but plan A should be getting what the Pats do well going and getting the Giants defense back on their heels.

[Zomp]

The Packers lost to the Lions 7-3, in a dome, last year. They beat the Jets 9-0. They scored 14 against the Chiefs this year, and had 7 points until the two-minute warning. The effort against the Giants wasn't one of their worst outings in many years.


Edit: added the one of

He didn't say it was. He said it would have been if the refs didn't fuck up two calls and gift them 14 points and Rodgers couldn't scramble. Its a perfectly reasonable statement.

[BigSoxFan]

I completely agree with this. I think the run-first approach plays into the Giants' hands; even if the Pats are fairly successful running, running the ball a lot on early downs is more likely to put the Pats in third-and-longs where the Giants can pin their ears back in the pass rush and run stunts and games to confuse the Pats' o-line. I see the Pats using the run like they did last week, running out of the hurry-up when they feel like they have a mismatch they can exploit. But fundamentally the Pats are a short passing team. If the Giants are taking steps to take that away, the Pats should adjust, but plan A should be getting what the Pats do well going and getting the Giants defense back on their heels.

Yup. Teams threw on the Giants for a reason - because you can. We're all scarred by SB42 but the problem that game was we stubbornly tried to go for the big play too much and the oline didn't block well enough for ANY gameplan

[Super Nomario]

He didn't say it was. He said it would have been if the refs didn't fuck up two calls and gift them 14 points and Rodgers couldn't scramble. Its a perfectly reasonable statement.

I have never seen so much whining about calls in a game your team won. Seriously, I've heard Giants fans mention those calls at least a dozen times since that game.

[Zomp]

...okay?

[Freddy Linn]

He didn't say it was. He said it would have been if the refs didn't fuck up two calls and gift them 14 points and Rodgers couldn't scramble. Its a perfectly reasonable statement.

I don't think it is reasonable to say that scrambling doesn't count in evaluating a defensive performance. And it isn't unprecedented that the Packers offense is shut down - it happened three games before. And three times the prior year.

Since we are including missed calls, how do the eight dropped passes factor in the evaluation of this multi-year epic performance?

[abty]

"The Packers lost to the Lions 7-3, in a dome, last year. They beat the Jets 9-0. They scored 14 against the Chiefs this year, and had 7 points until the two-minute warning. The effort against the Giants wasn't one of their worst outings in many years."

I wasn't clear, sorry. I meant, if the Giants win by 17 - and the Refs hand them 2 TD's on awful calls (even pat fans HERE agreed when it unfolded) then it means they'd have won 37-6. Yes, at home (which is what I really meant, sorry), that would have been one of their worst performances in years. Hell, even on the road. As for the dropped balls - would that not even add to the point? If we want to be anal, we can say it was their biggest ass kicking in about a year - when they won about 19 in a row. Right? Is that fair?

If you guys won that game on the road, the same way, you would not want people to play it down. Be honest. And guess what? I wouldn't. You win by 17 on the road, vs the defending champs, who never lose at home, and the refs fuck you 2 times, I wouldn't give you guys grief over it. Maybe I'm crazy. I just cannot believe how people downplay a win vs the fucking PACKERS but we're suppossed to go crazy over a win vs a team that is mediocre/ok on the road. I just am baffled. What win did the Patriots win that makes one say "Wow, that was impressive. Scary. How'd they do that?" I haven't seen it. You might do it Sunday. You are capable of it. But has it happened this year? No. You didn't face the 49'ers, Packers or Saints. Giants beat 2 of those 3. It's fair to say it was a good job. Just as it's fair to say a 17 point win in Lambaugh is a good job. That's all.

Edited by abty, 03 February 2012 - 01:08 AM.

[abty]

"Since we are including missed calls, how do the eight dropped passes factor in the evaluation of this multi-year epic performance?"

We didn't drop any? If we drop 8 and you win by 17 in the S.B, will anybody here be talking about our 8 dropped passes? Was it their best performance? No. Did YOU want to play the Packers that day instead of the Broncos? No. Next.

Edited by abty, 03 February 2012 - 01:10 AM.

[abty]

Now, time for a question as well as a few tidbits that some people may not know:

Regarding Pats' Improved Pass Rush

Eli has already faced the toughest pass rush in football outside of the Texans (49'ers) and the Giants faced the best rush defense, as well, in that same game vs the 49'ers. What will the Patriots do to outshine the 49'ers defensive efforts and make things more uncomfortable? If they match it, without a turnover, it's fair to say the Giants would lose. The question is, are the Patriots really that team?

Regarding Secondary of Patriots

What can the Giants expect, this time around, to offset any WR to secondary advantages that they would have - at least on paper?

Dome Element

It was mentioned earlier how the dome is a house of horrors for our defense. Well, it was. But the Giants still won 2 of those games and, let's be real, the Patriots are NOT the N.O Saints at home (41 PPG average at home - 9-0).
In those dome games, Eli has thrown for 321 yards, 406 yards (saints) and 400 yards (Cowboys).

Is it because it's a dome? No, it's because they had weak secondary's. Maybe the dome environment helped our WR's a bit - but if so, I think it's more than 'just the dome' being a factor. Our shitty d that gave up and quit is more of a factor of why the Saints scored 422 points against them. Not so much the turf/dome angle.

Second Viewings

Another thing to consider, the 3 best teams they played 2 times (Cowboys/Packers/49'ers), they won the 2nd match all 3 times. When they had to. They seem to adapt and handle the challenge quite well. It's something the Patriots have not had to deal with. Something to at least consider. While I am usually skeptical that any team can beat the Patriots 2 times in a year, it stands to reason that now that their defense is healthier and more confident, and they have Nicks/Bradshaw, they might pose new challenges and take the Pats by surprise. I think the same thing happened to the Cowboys/Packers in their rematches. More so than for the 49'ers who kicked our ass in the 2nd half.

Edited by abty, 03 February 2012 - 01:20 AM.

[Super Nomario]

I wasn't clear, sorry. I meant, if the Giants win by 17 - and the Refs hand them 2 TD's on awful calls (even pat fans HERE agreed when it unfolded) then it means they'd have won 37-6. Yes, at home (which is what I really meant, sorry), that would have been one of their worst performances in years. Hell, even on the road. As for the dropped balls - would that not even add to the point? If we want to be anal, we can say it was their biggest ass kicking in about a year - when they won about 19 in a row. Right? Is that fair?

If you guys won that game on the road, the same way, you would not want people to play it down. Be honest. And guess what? I wouldn't. You win by 17 on the road, vs the defending champs, who never lose at home, and the refs fuck you 2 times, I wouldn't give you guys grief over it. Maybe I'm crazy. I just cannot believe how people downplay a win vs the fucking PACKERS but we're suppossed to go crazy over a win vs a team that is mediocre/ok on the road. I just am baffled. What win did the Patriots win that makes one say "Wow, that was impressive. Scary. How'd they do that?" I haven't seen it. You might do it Sunday. You are capable of it. But has it happened this year? No. You didn't face the 49'ers, Packers or Saints. Giants beat 2 of those 3. It's fair to say it was a good job. Just as it's fair to say a 17 point win in Lambaugh is a good job. That's all.

I would probably say that the game the Giants played against the Packers two weeks ago is the best game either the Pats or the Giants have played all year. However,
1) The Pats were busy that weekend racking up a 35-point win over Denver, which is certainly not as impressive as a big win over Green Bay but isn't too shabby.
2) The Giants didn't exactly turn their dominant win into a great game the following weekend (nor did the Pats for that matter). If the Giants play as well against the Pats as they did against Green Bay, they will probably win, but that is far from a certainty.
3) Their game against the Packers was probably better than the any game the Pats have played all year, but the Giants played five games this year that were worse than any game New England played all season. If the teams are even in turnovers Sunday, the game is probably close to a coin flip, but the Giants are much more likely to melt down and play like ass.

[Freddy Linn]

"Since we are including missed calls, how do the eight dropped passes factor in the evaluation of this multi-year epic performance?"

We didn't drop any? If we drop 8 and you win by 17 in the S.B, will anybody here be talking about our 8 dropped passes? Was it their best performance? No. Did YOU want to play the Packers that day instead of the Broncos? No. Next.

You are specifically evaluating their offensive performance, and your defensive performance, by saying what if this happened or what if that happened. If that is the case, then it is fair to ask if the sheer number of dropped passes would have added to the offensive production of the Packers.

You aren't focusing on my original point - you don't have to oversell the Giants performance. It was great. Why try to accentuate its greatness with hypotheticals and hyperbole? Can't it stand on its own merits?

[abty]

You are specifically evaluating their offensive performance, and your defensive performance, by saying what if this happened or what if that happened. If that is the case, then it is fair to ask if the sheer number of dropped passes would have added to the offensive production of the Packers.

You aren't focusing on my original point - you don't have to oversell the Giants performance. It was great. Why try to accentuate its greatness with hypotheticals and hyperbole? Can't it stand on its own merits?

Interesting. Believe it or not, I am not trying to accentuate it. I am trying to counter only the 'they got lucky' element. That was my bugaboo. I may have not been clear on this and may have taken that out on you inadvertantly? If so, I apologize. As for the dropped passes q, I am a bit confused but it might be due to me being tired. I will say this - we did get lucky and, as fans, we were all shocked. I couldn't believe what I saw. I don't think their drops early on were due to our defense and I do think it was rust. The only parts of the game I look at where I say "We did a great job" was the way they consistently put pressure on Aaron and were able to get coverage. Those WR's are pure evil. That is the best offense I've seen all year because they do it on the road. N.O scores 41ppg at home but that's it.

To me, the Packers game can be summed up as: Ugly on their end, awful start, no ability to get hot, cost themselves a TD on a bad throw, hurt themselves with turnovers and got 2 huge breaks that helped them net 14 points. Not a great effort by them - but not an easy team to beat either. That's how I saw it. I recall how they ate up our defense earlier and it was a pleasure to see his smug smile turn upside down.

Edited by abty, 03 February 2012 - 01:25 AM.

[Super Nomario]

Eli has already faced the toughest pass rush in football outside of the Texans (49'ers) and the Giants faced the best rush defense, as well, in that same game vs the 49'ers. What will the Patriots do to outshine the 49'ers defensive efforts and make things more uncomfortable? If they match it, without a turnover, it's fair to say the Giants would lose. The question is, are the Patriots really that team?

I live in the Bay Area, so I'm well aware the 49ers have a great D. But they actually only had two more sacks than the Pats did on the season. The spread is a little wider when you consider the Pats faced more passing attempts (49ers sacked the QB 6.9% of the time vs Pats' 6.1%), but it's not night and day. And the Pats could ask the same questions of the Giants - Baltimore actually had a better sack rate at 8.2% than New York's 7.5%.

Another thing to consider, the 3 best teams they played 2 times (Cowboys/Packers/49'ers), they won the 2nd match all 3 times. When they had to. They seem to adapt and handle the challenge quite well. It's something the Patriots have not had to deal with. Something to at least consider.

The Eagles were just as good as the Cowboys, and the Giants lost the second time they faced them. The Redskins suck, but the second game against them was important to the Giants, and they still lost. The Pats played four teams twice; they won the second meeting all four times (granted, neither of those teams was SF or GB).

[abty]

3) Their game against the Packers was probably better than the any game the Pats have played all year, but the Giants played five games this year that were worse than any game New England played all season. If the teams are even in turnovers Sunday, the game is probably close to a coin flip, but the Giants are much more likely to melt down and play like ass.

You know what's funny? I'm going to surprise you by saying that we played MORE than 5 games that were worse than your games. Yep. Even our 5-2 stretch bugged me. Eli and Cruz, I can't say it enough, WERE the team. Osi should not have been playing and Tuck was well beyond ready. I don't know how we got sacks but the team was awful defensively. It was painful. I didn't like our Seahawks game, our Miami game, our 2 Redskins games, the last Eagles game and N.O. I can handle a division loss because they are always tough. Ignore records, the Redskins play defense (at least against us, those assholes) and THE Eagles are the god damn Eagles. The N.O game - please. Osi left before the half and the team took a knee. That was beying embarrassing. We agreed, that day, it was the worst game in over a decade. I am NOT kidding.

It's a weird season for us. We were not suppossed to be this good so early because we didn't know about Cruz or JPP yet. The talent was there. Remember, we blew that lead vs the Eagles last year and it cost us a potential #2 and NFC East. Coming into this year, the injuries almost ended our season. We needed a big break, health wise, and got more than we could have asked for. Your season was far superior, but our team, when it rebounded, IMHO, did more because it was forced to do more against tougher teams. With that said, you're 13-3 - even if we had that schedule we wouldn't be. Not with our issues earlier in the year. NO way. No way in the world. I respect what you did with your injuries and your abilty to adapt throughout the year. I also always respect 10 in a row. No matter what your schedule is.

[abty]

I live in the Bay Area, so I'm well aware the 49ers have a great D. But they actually only had two more sacks than the Pats did on the season. The spread is a little wider when you consider the Pats faced more passing attempts (49ers sacked the QB 6.9% of the time vs Pats' 6.1%), but it's not night and day. And the Pats could ask the same questions of the Giants - Baltimore actually had a better sack rate at 8.2% than New York's 7.5%.


The Eagles were just as good as the Cowboys, and the Giants lost the second time they faced them. The Redskins suck, but the second game against them was important to the Giants, and they still lost. The Pats played four teams twice; they won the second meeting all four times (granted, neither of those teams was SF or GB).

You should read the Rolle article about that. Eli was awful, it was what we used to call the Let down game. It's a long story, but Giants fans I know talked about it before this season really took off. It was not new to us, let's just say that. That loss was our catalyst. It's a bit of a long story but I think I posted the link elsewhere. Tuck even talked about it. Basically, Rolle laid into them and told the injured players, not by name, to stop whining, get out in practice and stop fucking around. Tuck said that, from that point, they were a unit. They then went out and got a 21-0 lead on the Cowboys and never gave up more than 20 points in those 5 games. To me, that is a g.d miracle the way the defense played earlier.

One issue, you said the Eagles are as good as the Cowboys. Not sure, but I agree they are tough. I don't read much into the losses before the Skins loss because I expected them to lose that game. Basically, the Skins game was the one where we were like "WTF?" But they had a fire lit under their ass and they grew up. They needed that ass kicking. They were just about to get healthy and had a big win in Dallas. That was awful. But it was also due to Eli's interceptions IIRC. He had a shit game. They gave up 23, not 34 or anything. But to score 10? Awful.

But it was the best thing that happened to us.

[Tony C]

You know, I hate people who play thread police, but what does this back and forth with abty have to do with "General SB strategy talk"? I don't object to the back and forth itself, fine on another thread (the "let's get goddamn revenge" seems suited for smack talk). But there were some great posts on this thread toward the top, and then Morgan had a really great post. But that has been drowned out now by smack talk stuff that has nothing to do with this thread.

As someone who has been craving stuff to read about the strategy of the game, that sucks.

[CaptainLaddie]

Once again abty ruins a thread.

[wiffleballhero]

I'd be interested in knowing (from those of you who can critique such things) what to expect in terms of the relationship between strategy and the refs. In particular, can we expect that the refs are going to 'let them play' and therefore things that are called in a ticky-tack way in October are now fair game (in terms of contact with receivers and holding calls at the line) or is the expectation that this crew is going to call it tight throughout?

[nazz45]

As far as pass defense goes, the most basic look we will have to do deal with is a 3 WR/1 TE set in which Hakeem Nicks is usually lined up alone on the weak side, Cruz is in the slot on the strong side, and Manningham is on the outside. Nicks alone on Arrington Island presents a basic problem - how often do we give help? My guess is that the answer is "often." We may mix up the degree to which a S slides over, and we may have some looks in which we give help underneath instead and allow the CB to play off, but I imagine there won't be that many plays on which there's no help at all. We've seen how that movie ends.

While I think it is unlikely to happen due to Chung's late return to the season and the revolving door at safety, I would have Chung in the slot being that physical, re-routing presence against Cruz and then dropping him into underneath coverages (using exotic and disguised combinations depending on what you're doing with your corner and safety on the same side on a particular play or look the Giants are giving).

I think this does a few things:

1.) It frees up a linebacker to stay "in the box" and spy the releasing RB threat.

2.) It allows Chung to cause chaos around the line of scrimmage (he can blitz from the "star" position, he can matchup physically with a WR or TE in the slot, he can better support against the run, etc.). They used Chung quite a bit in this role last year with mixed success; if they had better safety depth/health, maybe they would have tried again this season.

3.) You are keeping Edelman off the field and McCourty at safety.

The drawback, of course, is that Ihedigo will play far more than he should. His lack of speed would scare me, whether as the help defender over the top or picking up Ballard (who's not exactly fleet of foot, either) in man.

Again, don't think this will happen much, if at all, but I like the idea.

Edited by nazz45, 03 February 2012 - 08:58 AM.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

While I think it is unlikely to happen due to Chung's late return to the season and the revolving door at safety, I would have Chung in the slot being that physical, re-routing presence against Cruz and then dropping him into underneath coverages (using exotic and disguised combinations depending on what you're doing with your corner and safety on the same side on a particular play or look the Giants are giving).

Sounds good to me. We actually did this a fair amount as well against Gates, in addition to the LB jamming that I mentioned. As you suggest, its all about mixing up the type of zone coverage behind and next to the slot guy (Chung in this case), with respect to how the CB/S on that side are aligned and also whether we have LBs dropping into the Middle Zone and/or Hook Zone on that side of the field. Given that their offense is designed to give Cruz a lot of route options and puts the onus on Eli and Cruz to stay on the same page, this is likely a critical chess match, with BB trying to fool Eli and Cruz and keep them guessing about where soft spots in the defense will open up.

In this respect, it may be a significant advantage for us that Cruz, while hugely talented, is pretty inexperienced. We saw last year in the Jets game an example of good disguise really frustrating very talented but inexperienced receivers (Gronkerhandez) trying to work the middle of the field in the context of a route option-heavy offense. Lets hope the shoe ends up on the other foot on Sunday.

[bakahump]

(especially if Vollmer and Solder both play)

I was going to ask how this could happen.

Then I thought..... Light Mankins Connolly/Wendell Waters Vollmer Solder (6 OL)
Gronk Sweetleaf Welker (3)
Brady (1)
BJGE/Woody (1)

Thats 11 guys. 4 targets and Great protection. It would also give you a "Goal Line" running option.

Would Belichick possible do this?

If the giants counter with 7 or 8 bigs in the box.....you have Gronk, Sweet , Welker and Wood able to work their way open.
If they counter this with 4 or 5 guys in the box and 6-7 in coverage....you can run right at them with either Woody or BJGE.

Totally bizarre and I dont expect it.

Which brings be back to the question I initially had....how does Vollmer and Solder play (along with Light, Mankins and Waters and whoever plays center)?