3-5 step drops from the Giants

[skinsscalper]

while true, I'm just saying that the Cowboys should give the Giants alot of that nickle/dime look, w/ the 6 DBs and 1 LB, that was huge in bottling up the Eagle O, which although it doesn't score points, it moves the ball pretty well between the 20s

That defense is also extremely susceptible to getting gashed by the run game. Now, against the Eagles it worked because they don't have a run game. That dog won't hunt with Ward or Jacobs in the backfield. The Cowboys are going to face a stiff running attack this weekend especially at home for the Giants. The play action is going to be Eli's best friend. Honestly, we have to be completely dominating the Giants on the scoreboard for this defensive philosophy to stand a chance, IMHO.

Ward was gashing us for big chunks in the first game with our base 3-4 he would mutilate a defense fielding 1 linebacker and a gaggle of DBs. This ain't the Eagles (with all due respect, Sac).

SS

 

[AdamJT13]

I think this game determines who wins the division.

Even if we lose, we still have the tiebreaker over the Giants.

 

[theogt]

Even if we lose, we still have the tiebreaker over the Giants.

Well, technically, they would hold the tiebreaker immediately after the game because they'll have the better division record (3-1 vs. 2-1).

 

[Bob Sacamano]

That defense is also extremely susceptible to getting gashed by the run game. Now, against the Eagles it worked because they don't have a run game. That dog won't hunt with Ward or Jacobs in the backfield. The Cowboys are going to face a stiff running attack this weekend especially at home for the Giants. The play action is going to be Eli's best friend. Honestly, we have to be completely dominating the Giants on the scoreboard for this defensive philosophy to stand a chance, IMHO.

Ward was gashing us for big chunks in the first game with our base 3-4 he would mutilate a defense fielding 1 linebacker and a gaggle of DBs. This ain't the Eagles (with all due respect, Sac).

SS

you don't employ a nickel/dime in rushing situations

 

[skinsscalper]

you don't employ a nickel/dime in rushing situations

I'm aware of that, but many times in a 3 WR set (a nickel or dime situation *and it was dime against the Eagles with 6 DBs*) there is, typically a RB in the backfield (for atleast QB protection). The fact that it ISN'T a rushing situation is what makes the run (or a screen) a dangerous play. We have seen plenty of it with MBIII on screens and draws. It's not rocket science.

We didn't "employ a nickel/dime in rushing situations" with the Iggles either. It's no secret that the Eagles are a pass first team. That defense is more effective against that type of offense. The Giants will be determined to pound the ball and control the clock and keep Romo off the field. The defense that we played against Philly would be suicide against that type of attack. Hope that was simplified enough for you.

SS

 

[AdamJT13]

Well, technically, they would hold the tiebreaker immediately after the game because they'll have the better division record (3-1 vs. 2-1).

Which is irrelevant, since the season doesn't end after Sunday. If we win the rest of our games and they win the rest of theirs, we will have the tiebreaker. Even if they win Sunday, they still have to count on us losing more than they do or losing certain games (if they lose the same number of games). They wouldn't control their own destiny, but we would.

 

[theogt]

Which is irrelevant, since the season doesn't end after Sunday. If we win the rest of our games and they win the rest of theirs, we will have the tiebreaker. Even if they win Sunday, they still have to count on us losing more than they do or losing certain games (if they lose the same number of games). They wouldn't control their own destiny, but we would.

Which is irrelevant, because it's extremely unlikely that we win out.

 

[AdamJT13]

Which is irrelevant, because it's extremely unlikely that we win out.

No, you don't get it. It's irrelevant who has a better winning percentage in the division after Sunday because we will have played a different number of games in the division, and that won't be the case at the end of the season.

It's not irrelevant that they could win out and STILL not win the division. It's not irrelevant that if we both go 6-1 in the final seven games, they MUST win certain games and we MUST lose a certain game for them to overtake us in the standings. It's the same if we both go 5-2 or 4-3 or whatever (assuming the Commanders don't catch both of us).

If both teams have the SAME record and lose to the SAME team(s) over the final seven games, we win the tiebreaker. That's not irrelevant.

Even if they beat us Sunday, they STILL have to do something to overtake us in the final standings, and they STILL have to get help to win the division.

Win or lose Sunday, we STILL control our destiny. They don't, even if they win.

 

[theogt]

No, you don't get it. It's irrelevant who has a better winning percentage in the division after Sunday because we will have played a different number of games in the division, and that won't be the case at the end of the season.

It's not irrelevant that they could win out and STILL not win the division. It's not irrelevant that if we both go 6-1 in the final seven games, they MUST win certain games and we MUST lose a certain game for them to overtake us in the standings. It's the same if we both go 5-2 or 4-3 or whatever (assuming the Commanders don't catch both of us).

If both teams have the SAME record and lose to the SAME team(s) over the final seven games, we win the tiebreaker. That's not irrelevant.

Even if they beat us Sunday, they STILL have to do something to overtake us in the final standings, and they STILL have to get help to win the division.

Win or lose Sunday, we STILL control our destiny. They don't, even if they win.

No, I get it. It's just irrelevant.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'm aware of that, but many times in a 3 WR set (a nickel or dime situation *and it was dime against the Eagles with 6 DBs*) there is, typically a RB in the backfield (for atleast QB protection). The fact that it ISN'T a rushing situation is what makes the run (or a screen) a dangerous play. We have seen plenty of it with MBIII on screens and draws. It's not rocket science.

We didn't "employ a nickel/dime in rushing situations" with the Iggles either. It's no secret that the Eagles are a pass first team. That defense is more effective against that type of offense. The Giants will be determined to pound the ball and control the clock and keep Romo off the field. The defense that we played against Philly would be suicide against that type of attack. Hope that was simplified enough for you.

SS

the Giants are going to use alot of 3 step drops to try and neutralize our pass-rush, so we just go to the 6 DB/1 LB dime look alot in order to get coverage sacks, that's all I'm saying

now if you want to see alot of zone, w/ the safeties back, where Manning can pick us apart underneath, like during the 1st meeting against them, then that's fine by me, but not what I would call advisable

hope that was simplified enough for you

 

[AdamJT13]

No, I get it. It's just irrelevant.

So, you think tiebreakers are irrelevant?

Oh, I get it. It's irrelevant because we're going to win Sunday. Good point.

 

[theogt]

So, you think tiebreakers are irrelevant?

Half-way through the season, yes. We've yet to even play the team that they lost to.

Oh, I get it. It's irrelevant because we're going to win Sunday. Good point.

Not my point, but it is a good one.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

That defense is also extremely susceptible to getting gashed by the run game. Now, against the Eagles it worked because they don't have a run game. That dog won't hunt with Ward or Jacobs in the backfield. The Cowboys are going to face a stiff running attack this weekend especially at home for the Giants. The play action is going to be Eli's best friend. Honestly, we have to be completely dominating the Giants on the scoreboard for this defensive philosophy to stand a chance, IMHO.

Ward was gashing us for big chunks in the first game with our base 3-4 he would mutilate a defense fielding 1 linebacker and a gaggle of DBs. This ain't the Eagles (with all due respect, Sac).

SS

In reality, the Eagles possess the components for a better ground than the Giants. Philly has Brian Westbrook, a better running back than anyone on the Giants' roster; a bigger, more physical offensive line; and, Shawn Andrews, one of the best young guards in the NFL.

Ward gashed the Cowboy in week 1 because the defense was learning and assimilating a new scheme, not because he's a better back than Brian Westbrook.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

we should replicate the gameplan we used against the Eagles on Sunday

NY has way better WRs than Philly.

I did like how we kept stuff in front of us, and got some good pressure because of the coverage.

 

[david_jackson]

diote=Bowe amano;1749918]we should replicate the gameplan we used against the Eagles on Sunday[/quote]

not a good idea.....if we go 6 DB vs WR on early downs like we did against Philly, then their bigger RB will pound us.

This Strategy was perfect agains Westbrook but I'm not sure it works here.

 

[Paniolo22]

Oh no question that it isn't the DB's choice but like I said in my post it seems that Henry prefers to play off while Newman is terrific when given the chance to play up on the receiver.

I think that is one of the reasons that Henry is more effective with the ball in the air. He gets a pretty good look at the qb as when Newman play up tight, he is in the WR's face and reading his eyes for the ball, or he is using his catch up speed to get to the recevier.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I think that is one of the reasons that Henry is more effective with the ball in the air. He gets a pretty good look at the qb as when Newman play up tight, he is in the WR's face and reading his eyes for the ball, or he is using his catch up speed to get to the recevier.

Exactly.

 

[lspain1]

the Giants are going to use alot of 3 step drops to try and neutralize our pass-rush, so we just go to the 6 DB/1 LB dime look alot in order to get coverage sacks, that's all I'm saying

now if you want to see alot of zone, w/ the safeties back, where Manning can pick us apart underneath, like during the 1st meeting against them, then that's fine by me, but not what I would call advisable

hope that was simplified enough for you

Bob, I won't need to simplify anything for anyone because I'm a simple kind of guy. For me, the Giants are a run first team and Eli has a reputation for doing better off of play action. I think you give Eli his 3 step drops because he won't be able to go deep on them. Jacobs, Ward, and that OL are the Giants bread and butter and you have to stop that first.

This game is a classic NFC East matchup with two physical teams. We want the game to rest on Manning's shoulders. A one dimensional Giants team will be unable to control TOP and our offense WILL score given opportunities with the ball. They did burn us deep last time so I understand your fear of Burress, Toomer, and Shockey. I want to think the first game of the season was an anomaly and our secondary is better now.

So, on the road against a foe who knows us well and has had two weeks to prepare, I think you have to play percentage football and play to stop the run first. We'll see.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Morning Pops!

This article already exists down below...

 

[BlueStar II]

Of course I realize he's a rookie and is still learning the game, but I hope that we can see a little more out of Spencer's pass rush ability, and what better game for him to show it than the Giants game, eh.