Theories on Game 1 last year?

[JayFord]

No disrespect to Garrett but he’s showed with us he won’t commit to what works

idk why......it was baffling

 

[Chocolate Lab]

You literally said, “Also, don't underestimate Garrett not liking at all that the young kid was getting so much praise for the offense.” How else are you expecting people to interpret that?

I don't think he liked the kid getting so much praise. Jason has always been very sensitive to what people thought of him.

Why you would think that leads to him sabotaging himself is beyond me.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I don't think he liked the kid getting so much praise. Jason has always been very sensitive to what people thought of him.

Why you would think that leads to him sabotaging himself is beyond me.

Then why would you even bring it up? You said don’t underestimate it... why should we not underestimate it? You are playing dumb. The literal implication of what you said is that he didn’t like Moore getting praise so he took some kind of action. If you want to play dumb, by all means do so, but don’t act like people can’t read.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Looking back for a bit before any concrete news emerges about the Boys. What are yalls theories on why the offense looked so different week 1 (you could extend this to weeks 1-3) verses the rest of the season?

I’m not referring to the competition of the teams we played also, because it’s not like we blew them out playing classic JG offensive football. This is strictly about the scheme, we’ve seen JG coached teams have blowouts before (Jaguars 2018), but it still looked schematically like any other game.

We motioned, shifted, and RPO’d the Giants to death week 1. I’d never seen the team do that before, it was almost shocking. I remember the game thread as well, most people were genuinely surprised at what they were seeing schematically.

Where do y’all think that went?

Huge switch in Game 4 against the NO. First 3 games, 70% passing on first down. Against NO, we doggedly ran Zeke into the strength of NO's defense on first down. When we passed on 1st down, it nearly always worked.

I took it as a combination of Garrett puckering up against a good team, and them wanting to make Zeke central to the offense again after playing himself back into football shape the first few weeks after his holdout.

 

[Alexander]

That Moore kid’s getting all the praise, I know what I’ll do, let’s mess with things and get ME fired! Meanwhile he will still be here. Wait, what was I trying to accomplish here?

Perhaps he thought back to how he stabbed Phillips in the back and decided there was no way he was giving him the chance. Who knows?

All I know is that after that game, we looked way more like a Garrett-run offense in terms of playcalling flow than one that was ran by someone else.

 

[Flamma]

We saw signs of it even in week 2 and 3 playing half asleep the first half. We're up 10-0 against the Dolphins and they come roaring back. Would have taken the lead if not for the fumble. That team played with a low intensity level all year.

 

[RoboQB]

File this post under "a picture is worth a thousand words".

 

[JohnsKey19]

Looking back for a bit before any concrete news emerges about the Boys. What are yalls theories on why the offense looked so different week 1 (you could extend this to weeks 1-3) verses the rest of the season?

I’m not referring to the competition of the teams we played also, because it’s not like we blew them out playing classic JG offensive football. This is strictly about the scheme, we’ve seen JG coached teams have blowouts before (Jaguars 2018), but it still looked schematically like any other game.

We motioned, shifted, and RPO’d the Giants to death week 1. I’d never seen the team do that before, it was almost shocking. I remember the game thread as well, most people were genuinely surprised at what they were seeing schematically.

Where do y’all think that went?

Unfortunately you don't get to play 16 games against a poor defense on your home field. Everything looks better when the cards are heavily stacked in your favor.

 

[817Gill]

Unfortunately you don't get to play 16 games against a poor defense on your home field. Everything looks better when the cards are heavily stacked in your favor.

Why did you choose to ignore all the data and facts about how we changed our schematics? Just completely miss a chance to have a quality discussion

 

[JohnsKey19]

Why did you choose to ignore all the data and facts about how we changed our schematics? Just completely miss a chance to have a quality discussion

I did. The point is it's very easy to call an offensive game, using a lot of different formations looking good while doing so, when playing a piss poor defensive team at home and mostly playing with a lead. You cannot discount the opponent, venue and flow of game. Especially with THIS team, who showed all year to be different offensive teams at home vs road. We`re not even having this discussion if we drew a stingy defensive opponent like Buffalo or New Orleans in Week 1.

 

[817Gill]

I did. The point is it's very easy to call an offensive game, using a lot of different formations looking good while doing so, when playing a piss poor defensive team at home and mostly playing with a lead. You cannot discount the opponent, venue and flow of game. Especially with THIS team, who showed all year to be different offensive teams at home vs road. We`re not even having this discussion if we drew a stingy defensive opponent like Buffalo or New Orleans in Week 1.

I’m not sure how you can ignore that lol pretty simple premise that has nothing to do with opponent strength. Why do you think the team chose to completely abandon passing on first down and play action? Was the schematic approach only a good one for bad teams? Is running a bunch on first down and neglecting play action a strategy reserved for good opponents?

More importantly, are you disputing the fact that there was a difference in how the games were called schematically/tendency wise?

 

[JohnsKey19]

I’m not sure how you can ignore that lol pretty simple premise that has nothing to do with opponent strength. Why do you think the team chose to completely abandon passing on first down and play action? Was the schematic approach only a good one for bad teams? Is running a bunch on first down and neglecting play action a strategy reserved for good opponents?

More importantly, are you disputing the fact that there was a difference in how the games were called schematically/tendency wise?

If anything perhaps they went into that game knowing Zeke was at about 60% due to the holdout and would have to rely on the pass more than they would normally like to. The Giants pass D was a perfect match.

 

[817Gill]

If anything perhaps they went into that game knowing Zeke was at about 60% due to the holdout and would have to rely on the pass more than they would normally like to. The Giants pass D was a perfect match.

Ok so your theory is, with easing Zeke in they relied more on the pass and that’s why we saw such drastic splits in 1st down runs and play action moving forward. Thank you lol, I just wanted to hear why people thought the schematic changes happened.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Then why would you even bring it up? You said don’t underestimate it... why should we not underestimate it? You are playing dumb. The literal implication of what you said is that he didn’t like Moore getting praise so he took some kind of action.

I never denied that he took some kind of action. In fact I believe he probably did take action. (Though again, I was mostly relaying what David Moore had said.)

Where our signals are getting crossed is in this self-sabotage business. I think Jason thought he was helping the kid out by guiding him to a more conservative approach in an extremely loud dome vs a better defense. I never said he was trying to hurt the team.

For some reason you seem intent on wanting to argue with me about this, when I don't think there's anything to argue about.