There is a myth that our receivers were getting jammed at the LOS. And thus taking away quick routes This is not true we just were not calling quick routes, as I expected. Mostly our receivers had between 4-7 yard cushions at the snap. What the Giants were doing is playing Bears ball. Cover 2. The CB and LBers would drop in coverage to between 7-12 yards waiting for the 5-15 yard routes, with the safeties taking the deep routes away. Underneath routes were available all day if we had tried.

Here is the formation on the failed 3rd and 3 that resulted in a sack setting up the missed Crosby kick.

This is a perfect setup to change the play or the route of Jones to a simple slant for a first down. And with one missed tackle, a big gain. This is the type of adjustment at the LOS that needs to be made to beat or put pressure on the cover 2 type defenses that have been giving up trouble.

If anybody has game video, let me know. I'd be happy to set aside 30 minutes to find a dozen or so examples of multiple Packers receivers being disrupted at the line, combined with Rodgers needing to scramble or get rid of the ball within 3 seconds.

If anybody has game video, let me know. I'd be happy to set aside 30 minutes to find a dozen or so examples of multiple Packers receivers being disrupted at the line, combined with Rodgers needing to scramble or get rid of the ball within 3 seconds.

I think you are going to be disappointed if you try. There was some occasions of press coverage, mostly in the redzone, and against Cobb. The outside was like this almost all game.

Alright, here goes. I'm sticking to the bulk first half for now since the vast majority of the plays in question featured the advertised action. Let's start with the same play you mentioned in your first post. And holy cow, slow connection alert.

1st Quarter, 7:51First off, you can see (Barely) Nelson at the top of the screen being disrupted slightly within 2 yards of the LOS:

A split second later, Cobb and to a lesser extent Finley are significantly disrupted:

Finally, from the backside you can see Nelson well-covered on the left about 5 yards downfield and a different shot of Cobb's action a split second later.

I agree that on this play, a slant from Jones would have worked nicely. However, if the second CB on his side of the field is on a delayed blitz or spying Rodgers, that's asking for a pick. It would work here because both CBs dropped back. With the way the play was run, Rodgers looked to Jones first but he was covered. He looked right, saw that Cobb, Finley, and Nelson were covered. By this point the pocket had collapsed and he scrambled, got sacked.

Rodgers' second sack and the next pass attempt after the INT (1st Quarter, 0:16) was dead from the start with an unblocked defender on Rodgers in less than 2 seconds.

On the following play, I'm afraid the action is half-off camera and I can't make out the players' numbers but you can see what I believe is Finley (Or maybe Jones) at the bottom being contacted two yards past the LOS:

And Nelson 3-4 yards past the LOS with just a little bit of contact (not much but it affected the route) on whoever that is in the slot below Driver:

The following play is a designed slant to Cobb that goes for 6 yards, well short of the first. All contact is intentional.

The following pass play is a designed dumpoff to Kuhn over the middle, there were 3 WRs in a bunch at the top and one on the bottom.

The following pass play, Cobb is hit at the bottom and Nelson is blown up at the top. There is very tight coverage on Jones, nobody else is on a route.

On the following play, Nelson is mugged again but defensive holding is called:

The following play is nicely run and the corners gave us plenty of cushion. Nice gain by Cobb.

On the following play, an incompletion to Stone Hands Jr. (Finley). Jones is on the bottom and looks like he was being forced inside and couldn't get on his route due to the contact. Cobb is held and holding the CB for a solid second and a half:

On the following play, a completion to finley. Nelson is slightly disrupted by the CB but is on a slant and gets by with no major problems. Jones is at the top and jukes the CB:

I'm stopping now since I need to get up in 6 hours and I think (hope) I've made my point that we got killed at the point of attack not only at the offensive line position, but with our WRs.

What kills me is your last sentence, porforis...they were killed at the point of attack. Pre game I remember Cobb saying that's what they learned from the playoff game, but what did we see last night? They were bullied w/in the first 5 yards.

Furthermore either Nelson or Mike McCarthy were asked if the Giants did anything differently sunday than the playoffs, the answer was no. So the team follows up the 2nd most embarrassing loss in probably 10 years with the MOST embarrassing loss in 10 some years against the same opponent that did the same thing 10 months prior.

I did not review the tape, and I'm not an offensive guru, but the rudimentary issue and concept seems simple to me. I recall watching myriad replays last night with pressure on Arod and the wr's backs to him still 10 yards out. The giants got to arod consistently w/in 2 seconds so you have to get the ball out quickly, and that seemed to be so often forgotten. A wr screen, an actual screen, a slant (which admittedly would require some physicality from the wr's which appears to be asking a bit much with these guys). No longer will this team be able to pull off a brett. Favre MNF 50 yard quick strike vs. The raiders style of offense.

If you look at the formation, and the contact. they are not being jammed. On the first play in question.

Nelson and the defender are in contact about 2 yards after the LOS, but Nelson starts 3 yards behind the LOS. that is 5 yards of free release before contact. Cobb is contacted about the yard to gain line, he starts 2 yards behind the LOS. Again 5 yards of free release. Finley is actually jammed pretty well coming of the Line. Jones has the biggest space and gets 7 yards of free release.

the theory though was, that coverage was such that would prevent them from running quick plays. It wasn't. The contact resulted because the patterns they were running were straight up field at the defenders. On the first play if either Nelson, Cobb or Jones, ran a slant, or any inward route instead of going upfield into contact, they quick routes would be available, until the defense adjusted, at which point, that would open up the 5-10 yard routes more.

The 2nd sack was the same. Yeah quick pressure was the cause, but again, the players were not pressed immediately, and there was easy options for quick routes if called, or audibled to.

The 2nd play you look at, 2nd & 18. Ended with Rodgers scrambling. Nelson is on an out turn route (probably a double move) which is fine itself. Driver goes straight up field and does a stop route moving towards the outside after. Finley is inside of him, and gets a pretty good release past Tuck, and quick pressure nullifies any chance with him. Jones also runs straight into his coverage. There was easy option on this play also. Driver was setup for WR screen with Nelson in position to block. Or Nelson run a slant with Driver inside to block for him. Or Jones run a slant from the bottom. Again, coverage did not prevent those routes, it was play calling and not adjusting at the LOS to formations.

Not only this game, but all our bad games, were almost the exact same. We kept running plays exactly the way the defense wanted us to, instead of running plays that make the defense come out of what they want to do.

Remember back to the days of Favre. How often did he look to Driver, or freeman or whoever when there was a 5 yard or so gap, and throw that 1 step drop slant and get 4-7 yards. With Rodgers, that look usually results in a back shoulder or deep route. I can't recall once where they switched to a slant. That could be because of what McCarthy wants them to do.

But the coverage did not dictate, it was choice. And lack of adjustment.

That is about at the snap of the ball. If rodgers audibles Jones to a slant, there is nothing pass rush can do. Only chance would be a batted ball.

Here is the formations on the 2nd sack of Rodgers.

This one is perfect for Nelson to be audibled to the slant, especially with a blocker inside to help with YAC. Preventing a Sack and putting pressure on the defense.

I'm not sure. Even out of the shotgun? That's one of the problems with the shotgun. It takes longer to get the ball out on a quick slant. And so even though NYG is off Jones at the snap, by the time that Rodgers gets the ball to him, the DB has had time to close.

How close up to the line did NY play when GB wasn't in the shotgun.

(Or was GB ever out of the shotgun? Sometimes it feels like they run 99.99% of their plays from it.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

the DB's are playing off so far and not pressing them off the line that short throws should be there. How is it that this defense is torched virtually every single week yet they play the packers and they look like the steel curtain?

the DB's are playing off so far and not pressing them off the line that short throws should be there. How is it that this defense is torched virtually every single week yet they play the packers and they look like the steel curtain?

alot of people noted when we beat the Jags and Cards, that playing to that level will not work against good competition.

yup.

maybe we are not actually "playing down" to our opponent, but are showing how good (bad) we truley are on offense.

alot of people noted when we beat the Jags and Cards, that playing to that level will not work against good competition.

yup.

maybe we are not actually "playing down" to our opponent, but are showing how good (bad) we truley are on offense.

A quick glance at the stats on yards allowed and yards gained, and the points allowed and points gained, shows that we are indeed a average team.That would match pretty well with the perception I have watching the games, we are average.

alot of people noted when we beat the Jags and Cards, that playing to that level will not work against good competition.

yup.

maybe we are not actually "playing down" to our opponent, but are showing how good (bad) we truley are on offense.

Yeah we have played bad against some decent defenses. Stop listening to analysts so much, the Giants have a BAD defense. Teams have been exploiting them all year long except for a 49ers team that can't play the catchup game, clearly we can't play that game either cause the only games we have been winning are the ones our D holds the other O down for most of the first half and we have control of.

If the D has a poor start our O can't get it together and picks start happening, sacks, turn overs and then it turns into 2 and 3 score leads. We had chances to come back in this Giants game AS WELL as the 49ers game but the offense kept throwing it away. Lets also be honest, our offense had no business getting a win vs the Bears or the Seahawks.

This offense is very, very bad unless it's in comfortable situations. Defense hasn't been great but they have been pretty good but I have no faith in this offense if they are being challenged. That's not a good thing.

If you look at the formation, and the contact. they are not being jammed. On the first play in question.

Nelson and the defender are in contact about 2 yards after the LOS, but Nelson starts 3 yards behind the LOS. that is 5 yards of free release before contact. Cobb is contacted about the yard to gain line, he starts 2 yards behind the LOS. Again 5 yards of free release. Finley is actually jammed pretty well coming of the Line. Jones has the biggest space and gets 7 yards of free release.

the theory though was, that coverage was such that would prevent them from running quick plays. It wasn't. The contact resulted because the patterns they were running were straight up field at the defenders. On the first play if either Nelson, Cobb or Jones, ran a slant, or any inward route instead of going upfield into contact, they quick routes would be available, until the defense adjusted, at which point, that would open up the 5-10 yard routes more.

The 2nd sack was the same. Yeah quick pressure was the cause, but again, the players were not pressed immediately, and there was easy options for quick routes if called, or audibled to.

The 2nd play you look at, 2nd & 18. Ended with Rodgers scrambling. Nelson is on an out turn route (probably a double move) which is fine itself. Driver goes straight up field and does a stop route moving towards the outside after. Finley is inside of him, and gets a pretty good release past Tuck, and quick pressure nullifies any chance with him. Jones also runs straight into his coverage. There was easy option on this play also. Driver was setup for WR screen with Nelson in position to block. Or Nelson run a slant with Driver inside to block for him. Or Jones run a slant from the bottom. Again, coverage did not prevent those routes, it was play calling and not adjusting at the LOS to formations.

Not only this game, but all our bad games, were almost the exact same. We kept running plays exactly the way the defense wanted us to, instead of running plays that make the defense come out of what they want to do.

Remember back to the days of Favre. How often did he look to Driver, or freeman or whoever when there was a 5 yard or so gap, and throw that 1 step drop slant and get 4-7 yards. With Rodgers, that look usually results in a back shoulder or deep route. I can't recall once where they switched to a slant. That could be because of what McCarthy wants them to do.

But the coverage did not dictate, it was choice. And lack of adjustment.

I absolutely agree that we should have ran more slants. However, just because you can swap in a slant for a completion out of half the plays I mentioned doesn't mean it would have turned out well. The Giants had our number and seemed to make adjustments after the TD to Nelson - why wouldn't they have adjusted again if we started throwing slants left and right? Their CBs (and on obvious passing downs, LBs) were staying close to the line and some were in zone. The great part about a slant is that if executed well, it is very hard to stop unless you know it's coming, and where it's coming. Unfortunately, Shotgun seems to be our default formation which slows the execution down. And in some of the examples you cited above, you mention that receivers are getting 5 yards of free release - If a receiver starts out on a slant 3 yards behind the LOS, that's plenty of time for a CB to react, especially in shotgun. And with the way the line was blocking, shotgun is the only reason Rodgers wasn't sacked 4 times by having his linemen pushed into him before he could take more than a step back.

In summary: We needed to mix it up. I agree absolutely that we needed to mix it up. However, you cannot simply take a bunch of plays that already happened, say "We should have thrown this" and assume that it will work for the whole game and that the Giants wouldn't have adjusted even half as nicely as they did after getting killed deep. We simply got outplayed and looked lethargic out there. There's no way we win this game with just top-notch playcalling, blocking at the line, or defense added to the game we put forward. Total team loss on this one (including coaching, minus maybe Cobb?).

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.