Ultimate NYG has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 5 seconds. If not, visit
www.ultimatenyg.com
and update your bookmarks.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Nitpickers Convention

1) Al Sharpton on Serby.

2) Joe Namath on the Jets.

3) Ultimatenyg for two years on doing it right. Rule #21 anyone? (and that was after 4 downs in a row with the penalty, not 3.)

4) Rule #8 and Rule #16 were discussed by one of the Ultimatenyg blog's silent majority, Rob, a charter member of this blog from back when it was an email group of 15-20 Giants fans:

When the defense held Pitt on 4th down, we took over the ball with about two minutes left. One first down wins the game, and a play of 20 yards puts us in FG position.

Why not go for the throat and throw the ball on 1st down? The Steelers are expecting nothing but run. Line up for a run and throw the ball. Trust in Manning that if it isn't there, he will take the sack and let the clock keep ticking and force the timeout ANYWAY. That is the perfect situation to cross up the defense. And you will have no better chance to succeed.

Instead, after a futile 3 and out, you see Gilbride on the sideline with Manning happy that they are leaving the game in the hands of our defense. Why do that? Why not try to get that next score or even that next first down and win?

That is being aggressive. That is playing to win. Don't give them that last possession. The great coaches don't let their opponents have extra chances. They play to win and not to lose.

As for the red zone, why not try a few of those plays with AB/Ward. Speed to the corner is deadly. Plus if you have to respect the corner, you can't sell out to stack the middle. Let them have to gamble a little bit.

You make everything about you more potent when you are unpredictable. People are late getting to the point of attack, because they have to react instead of anticipate. The linebackers and safeties can't cheat up because they don't know if it is a run or pass and consequently, the first contact is a yard further behind the line, and there is more separation for a quality RB to make a cut.

Gilbride hinders the team. There is obviously something to lining up and punching someone in the mouth, but much like a fighter, there is a difference between a puncher and a boxer. A boxer can beat a puncher with strategy and technique. And it is much better to be a boxer and not always a puncher.


As for the Prevent Offense, granted Roethlisberger did not have the protection to "likely" pull off a miracle drive, but are you willing to take that chance? Would you feel the same way if Brees or Brady is back there? How many of you (the ones rolling their eyes for this being nitpicky) were there in the Meadowlands in October of 2003 when the Philadelphia Eagles had even LESS of a chance of winning the game than the Steelers (they had scored 7 points the whole game), and Fassel did the same thing, the RRRK. AND WE LOST!!! How? Because Brian Westbrook ran the punt back 84 yards (familiar distance? familiar punter?) for a TD. Game over. Bill Walsh never did the RRRK until the other team's second string QB was in the game and it was completely over.

Re the boxer, The boxer does the play action to the TE and finds him WIDE OPEN because the Steelers are selling out with every possible body at the line of scrimmage. Maybe THIS is why we were going nuts at HALFTIME about the playcalling? Maybe if you tried the same playcall in Q1 or Q2 you'd have (a) one or two more TDs and (b) one or two LESS bodies selling out in future plays in that situation so that you'd score on the run. Sometimes a little less punching and little more boxing makes you a better puncher too.

WIN THE SUPER BOWL. WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS. Psychoanalyze that.

12 comments:

Nature said...

clap clap clap, people need to understand playing to win...and playing not to lose. and people please with the "your just saying mean stuff about Gilbride" f him, he stinks...Spags should punch em in the face like Buddy Ryan

dont just look at how many yards we have, its how we get them and how many yards/points we leave on the board thanx to Gilbride...im gonna purchase F-Gilbride.com

Nature said...

on the field i meant

Mitch said...

I'd like to change the subject around here and talk about what is important for this team right now!

This is the time to reel Plaxico in, if that's possible, and get him back into the game plan. After all the suspensions and fines and benchings, it's time to find a way to turn Burress loose on the other guys so he can disrespect them instead of his own organization, for a change.

None of our WR's are as dangerous as Burress. None of them is constantly double-teamed, blessed with his size and speed, capable of running the fade route in the corner of the end zone or is a bigger target for Manning.

Well, it's time. The season gets interesting in five days. Somebody in that locker room, other than Coughlin, needs to grab the team's resident head case and do a Singletary.

Andy F. said...

obviously the nitpicking is a SIDE STORY. The real story is how much talent there is on this offense. The defense on this team is very very good, the offense on this team can be truly great. The best offense I ever saw was in 2002, by the end of the season when it could score 30 w/o breaking a sweat. But this offense can be better. It has ALL the skill players (much more depth too, including a better slot receiver) plus the offensive line is better than 2002.

Re Burress, I have tried to stay clear of that sideshow all I can. Giants coaches and management have their hands full with a messy situation. Before he was re-signed, I stuck up for the guy because he played all year hurt, quietly at that, and he was truly vital in our run for a title. Once he got paid, all of this behavior came right back... the same way it came out shortly after he was signed in 2005. I won't defend him. Given the plethora of receivers we have, the advancement of Hixon and Moss, I'd say ALL options are on the table.

Motown Blue Burke said...

Like I said in a previous post, another reason to have a 2 back alignment. You have more options when Ward/Jacobs are both in....You can go wide with Ward or up the middle with Ward and Jacobs. Ward and Jacobs have showen blocking ability. Is it possible they still don't trust Manning yet to open the offense up/complicate packages???

dberenson said...

Our biggest victory of the season (44-6 vs. Seattle) was played without Plaxico. If Manning can get an equal comfort level with Hixon (and others, including Boss and Ward/Bradshaw out of the backfield), we won't feel the loss of Plaxico very much.

Nature said...

the one thing about the P.Burress situation is we wont play anyone with a secondary like Seattle's except maybe dallas this week, so his dumb ass has to get on board he is wearing thin in my mind....i can honestly see us DEACTIVATING him (TO/KEYSHWAN) style, cut him recoup $$$ and go after ANQUAN BOLDIN or something, i know there is going to be a receiver freeing up who doesn't mind the TEAM concept

i can respect someone feeling like they dont get the ball enough but the no show shit is weak

xtian said...

the diff bet 2008 and 2002 teams is depth. 2002 based everything on collins, tiki, shockey, and toomer [with a little bit of dixon]. all 4 had great years. if they lost any of those guys they are done. 2008 could lose starters at each position and still be good except maybe manning although carr actually could be very good.

interesting comment about going for it on that first down. if i remember correct the time was 2:10, so a run would have been better to ensure a timeout and no sack, but they could have done play action with jacobs run up the middle on 2nd down.

gosh, the conservative approach reminds me of the 90 team's offense with ottis 3 yard runs and a pass on 3rd down, no turnovers, tough defense without sacking the qb much, and special teams. it worked.

Mitch said...

to dberenson...

The reason I said to let's try to get Plaxico on board is because we need him. Hixon is a good player and maybe he'll be a great player but if you think we would have won the Super Bowl without Plax last year then you are not thinking this through.

In fact, check out the NFC Championship game in Green Bay last year. The Giants never get to the Super Bowl without him. PERIOD!

He is a unique a physical freak. He is a giraffe with soft hands, strength & speed. And if he had his head on straight he could be as good as any other WR in the game today.

Craig said...

The Seattle game was the easiest to win for a reason. They are garbage this year. Plaxico is one of the best WR's in the league. Double covered and he can still make plays. He is our only playmaking WR. Smith is a great slot receiver, Hixon great, and Toomer's feet belong in the hall of fame, but who else could have man handled Al Harris in the NFC championship game, nobody. We need Plax.

My opinion is the lack of redzone success. Carney leads the league in field goals, not good. I have an idea. Rueben Droughns? He had 6 or 7 TDs last year doin just goal line rushes. We do pay him so put him in. He's big like Jacobs but fresh and something different. Or maybe try a bootleg? Worked pretty well in week 1.

We should have won that game by 3 touchdowns. Something is wrong here, and yes I will say it, Gilbride in the Red zone, or green zone, is not good. Either a fad to Plax or Jacobs up the middle. This team has so much potential.

dberenson said...

Point taken on Plax in the NFC Championship game last year: He was amazing, much to Al Harris' chagrin.

But if becomes a locker room distraction, is there a risk that he becomes more trouble than he's worth? I don't want this to be true, but I can see it headed there. He's got his guaranteed money, he's got his ring, and he doesn't like Tom Coughlin.

There was a time when we couldn't conceive of this team with Shockey, but here we are.

James Allen said...

1) Wow. People still listen to Sharpton? People still read Serby?

2) Not that Mangini can't be taken down a peg, but hearing these old-timers grouse about the modern game is a little bit sickening and sounds somewhat disingenuous. Although one can imagine that the comments 20 years hence of the current crop of athletes will make these 60's and 70's guy sound like contriteness.

3) Rule 5 was clearly violated in the 4th quarter this past Sunday. That's something I've detested for years. Fassel, for one, called that crap all the time and it drove me nuts.

4) Yup. I have no idea why more teams don't go for that game ending first down more aggressively. Why the hell is trusting your defense more noble than trusting your offense?

Sports Business Directory - BTS Local
Blog Directory - Blogged