Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


Defensive Review: Giants

Locker Room Main Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-18-2009, 01:38 PM   #1
JWsleep
Propane and propane accessories
 
JWsleep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 56
Posts: 4,719
Re: Defensive Review: Giants

Great stuff again. Thanks Tripp!
__________________
Hail from Houston!
JWsleep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 02:20 PM   #2
KI Skins Fan
Pro Bowl
 
KI Skins Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Forida
Posts: 6,412
Re: Defensive Review: Giants

Let's see if I got this straight. In the offensive review, our resident experts tell us that Zorn was outcoached by the Giants' DC and, in the defensive review, they tell us that Blache was outcoached by the Giants' OC. Meanwhile, we're picking apart every mistake the players make.

If it's true that we were outcoached on both sides of the ball, let's hope that doesn't become a trend because, if the coaches can't put the players in positions where they are likely to succeed, we won't have a snowball's chance of making the playoffs.
KI Skins Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 03:15 PM   #3
FRPLG
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 46
Posts: 10,164
Re: Defensive Review: Giants

Quote:
Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan View Post
Let's see if I got this straight. In the offensive review, our resident experts tell us that Zorn was outcoached by the Giants' DC and, in the defensive review, they tell us that Blache was outcoached by the Giants' OC. Meanwhile, we're picking apart every mistake the players make.

If it's true that we were outcoached on both sides of the ball, let's hope that doesn't become a trend because, if the coaches can't put the players in positions where they are likely to succeed, we won't have a snowball's chance of making the playoffs.
I get what you're saying...I don't think we're gettng out-coached on O. I think our coaching staff is so scared of pressure that it has really inhibited their play-calling. They need to just grow a set and start calling plays without concern for protection. We can either protect and run a good offense or we can hide in a shell and run a crap offense. Hiding in a shell wins us 10 games tops if everything works out perfectly (a good defense, adequate teams and some luck on O).
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 03:43 PM   #4
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
Re: Defensive Review: Giants

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
I get what you're saying...I don't think we're gettng out-coached on O. I think our coaching staff is so scared of pressure that it has really inhibited their play-calling. They need to just grow a set and start calling plays without concern for protection. We can either protect and run a good offense or we can hide in a shell and run a crap offense. Hiding in a shell wins us 10 games tops if everything works out perfectly (a good defense, adequate teams and some luck on O).
I don't think Blache necessarily got outcoached on Sunday either. There were bad calls, yes, but I thought he got out-Blached by Kevin Gilbride (Giants O Coordinator). He called a lot of plays into our defensive strengths, and despite having automatic completions out on the field, they were only 6/12 on converting third downs.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 04:17 PM   #5
Slingin Sammy 33
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Defensive Review: Giants

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
I don't think Blache necessarily got outcoached on Sunday either. There were bad calls, yes, but I thought he got out-Blached by Kevin Gilbride (Giants O Coordinator). He called a lot of plays into our defensive strengths, and despite having automatic completions out on the field, they were only 6/12 on converting third downs.
Allowing 50% on 3rd down conversion is poor. For Week 1 nfl.com has us at #25 at 46% (6/13). For the 2008 season, average teams were at 39-40%, 46% would put us at #29-30 in last years regular season standings in this category.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 04:18 PM   #6
SmootSmack
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,256
Re: Defensive Review: Giants

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Allowing 50% on 3rd down conversion is poor. For Week 1 nfl.com has us at #25 at 46% (6/13). For the 2008 season, average teams were at 39-40%, 46% would put us at #29-30 in last years regular season standings in this category.
I saw somewhere that our defense had the highest percentage of 3 and outs in the NFL, or something like that. Just thought I would throw that in there
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 03:11 PM   #7
Njall
Registered User
 
Njall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: N.Y.C.
Posts: 41
Re: Defensive Review: Giants

The 4-3 is best i believe against the run. Especially with a 330 DT like Hworth...
Njall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 03:48 PM   #8
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
Re: Defensive Review: Giants

We only had 10 offensive possessions, and in that, 2 turnovers is certainly not good, but the Giants only had EIGHT offensive possessions, and two ended in turnovers, one in a turnover on downs, with four scoring drives and a single punt. Turning the ball over on 25% of drives is completely inexcusable. Even 20% (for us) was pretty bad.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 04:41 PM   #9
FRPLG
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 46
Posts: 10,164
Re: Defensive Review: Giants

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
We only had 10 offensive possessions, and in that, 2 turnovers is certainly not good, but the Giants only had EIGHT offensive possessions, and two ended in turnovers, one in a turnover on downs, with four scoring drives and a single punt. Turning the ball over on 25% of drives is completely inexcusable. Even 20% (for us) was pretty bad.
I felt like our defense just couldn't get itself off the field a few too many times. Hence the only 8 possessions for the Gints. They had a few long time-consuming drives I think that took possessions away from our offense and killed field position, again limiting what we could do on offense. I really felt our D had a big hand in the lack of offense.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 04:59 PM   #10
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
Re: Defensive Review: Giants

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
I felt like our defense just couldn't get itself off the field a few too many times. Hence the only 8 possessions for the Gints. They had a few long time-consuming drives I think that took possessions away from our offense and killed field position, again limiting what we could do on offense. I really felt our D had a big hand in the lack of offense.
Prepare to defend yourself against completely backwards logic like: "it's because the offense sucks."

"Because the offense sucks...the defense can't get off the field?"

"No, the defense is tired because the offense sucks"

"But, that doesn't even make sense. I was talking about how the Giants had such an obsurdly low number of possessions. That has nothing to do with the offense."

"Campbell is the problem."
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 05:05 PM   #11
SmootSmack
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,256
Re: Defensive Review: Giants

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Prepare to defend yourself against completely backwards logic like: "it's because the offense sucks."

"Because the offense sucks...the defense can't get off the field?"

"No, the defense is tired because the offense sucks"

"But, that doesn't even make sense. I was talking about how the Giants had such an obsurdly low number of possessions. That has nothing to do with the offense."

"Campbell is the problem."
All of which are ridiculous points when we know the real problem is "We have a racist nickname"
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 05:07 PM   #12
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
Re: Defensive Review: Giants

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
All of which are ridiculous points when we know the real problem is "We have a racist nickname"
Exactly! If it's an air attack you want, then we should be the Washington Rockets.

Our primitive defensive scheme is clearly a function of our nickname.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.89297 seconds with 11 queries