PDA

View Full Version : LZ's Blog: Film school: How the Giants used scheme to stop the running game.


Shaft75
10-13-2010, 05:28 PM
http://blogs.chron.com/fantasyfootball/2010/10/film_school_how_the_giants_use_1.html

Make sure to read the text below each youtube clip before you watch it. I really like this setup.

BTW - Thanks to Dalemurphy also for his film reviews.

I miss breaking down film after a game. This is what the players do as a follow up to their "gotta get better" slogan.

ATXtexanfan
10-13-2010, 05:37 PM
texans got read like a book, nothing more to it. sad they couldn't counter at the half but not making adjustments proves why this staff isn't up to par.

dalemurphy
10-13-2010, 05:37 PM
http://blogs.chron.com/fantasyfootball/2010/10/film_school_how_the_giants_use_1.html

Make sure to read the text below each youtube clip before you watch it. I really like this setup.

BTW - Thanks to Dalemurphy also for his film reviews.

I miss breaking down film after a game. This is what the players do as a follow up to their "gotta get better" slogan.


Really interesting stuff from LZ. Wouldn't be amazing to see/hear Kubiak get asked questions like this every week for half an hour or so? When I was young, I remember the Tom Landry show on Sunday mornings and he spent about 10-15 minutes with his projector and pointer breaking down plays. Instead, we get 5 questions from McClain about whether the loss was disappointing. Then, Kubiak is on for an hour on Monday evening, and he gets asked almost nothing substancial the entire time.

thunderkyss
10-13-2010, 05:47 PM
Good read. I don't agree with much of what he says, but it's interesting to see different opinions.

I think we tipped our hand. I rewatched the game & every time the motion man ended up near the OL, it was a run play. If the motion man ended up out wide, seperated from the line, it was a pass.

they new the run was coming, & sold out. Overloaded the play side & got to Arian before he could cut back.

On pass plays, they didn't bite on the PA..... just dropped in their zones.

The only plays we made good on, were Andre being Andre, & plays where there was no motion & they had to play honest.

I'm watching the Cowboy game now. The 'boys didn't pick up on it, but we're doing the same thing.

Dennison has some work to do.

Shaft75
10-13-2010, 05:50 PM
While watching the clip where the Giants put 9 men in the the box, I couldn't help but think/yell in my head... WHY CAN'T THE QB EFFIN AUDIBLE??!?!?!?!

Don't you think opposing teams know that we don't audible? I would stack the box too if I were the Giants. Myers may not have seen it, but I'm sure Schaub did. Audible to a pass play and either take that 9th man out of the box, or torch their pansy asses! GEEZ!

thunderkyss
10-13-2010, 05:52 PM
texans got read like a book, nothing more to it. sad they couldn't counter at the half but not making adjustments proves why this staff isn't up to par.

Really?

We were able to actually put drives together in the second half. Couldn't score, but we were moving the ball better. If it weren't for Schaub being a slow starter, maybe things could be different. He never got anything started in the first half.

The defense looked like a pro D in the second half, only allowing 10 points.

HJam72
10-13-2010, 05:55 PM
Alright, so we need healthy receivers worse than I thought. I didn't realize AJ's speed was in question, but that's what I guess I'm hearing. Safeties don't worry about the go route, etc.

HJam72
10-13-2010, 05:58 PM
Really?

We were able to actually put drives together in the second half. Couldn't score, but we were moving the ball better. If it weren't for Schaub being a slow starter, maybe things could be different. He never got anything started in the first half.

The defense looked like a pro D in the second half, only allowing 10 points.

Yeah, they did look a lot better after adjustments. Problem is those "adjustments" weren't to the Giants; they were just various bad play that never should've happened in the first place.

dalemurphy
10-13-2010, 06:16 PM
Alright, so we need healthy receivers worse than I thought. I didn't realize AJ's speed was in question, but that's what I guess I'm hearing. Safeties don't worry about the go route, etc.

He's severely hobbled by the ankle sprain right now... combine that with Jacoby's injury and we have nobody that can stretch the field. AJ's speed is fine when he's healthy.

Joe Texan
10-13-2010, 06:37 PM
I have to say you and Dale Murphy are doing a fantastic job. I am really enjoying this and I am hoping the Team catches a glimpse of your observations

Texanmike02
10-13-2010, 06:48 PM
Yeah, they did look a lot better after adjustments. Problem is those "adjustments" weren't to the Giants; they were just various bad play that never should've happened in the first place.

Walter isn't a legitimate number 1 receiver. A hobbled AJ didn't draw attention to give KW room. Jacoby was sidelined and Dickerson... he may have potential but potential not named Bush doesn't scare coaches in this league.

Its obvious that they didn't fear the pass and no matter how good you are at running the ball.. if you can't threaten the pass you're not going to do much. If we had a huge oline who could create space at the line and a rb who was made to run through people we might have seen a different outcome. The problem is that this offense is built to work together. We've got a contingency plan for AJ and his name is JJ. He was out of the game. When you are missing two cogs in the lineup you're going to struggle.. had it been one RB and one WR we are probably ok.... but its clear that the defense needs a deep threat to worry them because we can't run with the box stacked.

At least that's what I took away from this film.

Mike

eriadoc
10-13-2010, 06:55 PM
Good read. I don't agree with much of what he says, but it's interesting to see different opinions.

It should be noted that he's mostly reporting what was seen by an NFL OL coach. I'd be interested to hear specifically what you don't agree with and why.

Texan_Bill
10-13-2010, 07:04 PM
Alright, so we need healthy receivers worse than I thought. I didn't realize AJ's speed was in question, but that's what I guess I'm hearing. Safeties don't worry about the go route, etc.

The one thing that both LZ and Johnny Harris talked about Monday was the fact that the Giants were not scared of AJ (because of his high ankle sprain). Without Jacoby (athleticism and speed) and with AJ not 100% allowed them to do what they wanted to do, defensively.

(not sure if LZ's blog mentioned that, because I haven't read it yet).

JB
10-13-2010, 07:14 PM
The one thing that both LZ and Johnny Harris talked about Monday was the fact that the Giants were not scared of AJ (because of his high ankle sprain). Without Jacoby (athleticism and speed) and with AJ not 100% allowed them to do what they wanted to do, defensively.

(not sure if LZ's blog mentioned that, because I haven't read it yet).

From what I got out of it, the Giants played 8 iin the box just about the entire game. They attacked the los instead of reacting. They had faith in their DL to get pressure on any pass plays and stopped our OL from getting to the 2nd level.

Honoring Earl 34
10-13-2010, 07:26 PM
From what I got out of it, the Giants played 8 iin the box just about the entire game. They attacked the los instead of reacting. They had faith in their DL to get pressure on any pass plays and stopped our OL from getting to the 2nd level.

They are betting that Schaub has to get rid of it before he can burn them . This get amplified when AJ is hurt so stack the line and see what happens because Anderson and Walter isn't striking fear in anyone .

Is this like a theory or something .

Texan_Bill
10-13-2010, 07:29 PM
They are betting that Schaub has to get rid of it before he can burn them . This get amplified when AJ is hurt so stack the line and see what happens because Anderson and Walter isn't striking fear in anyone .

Is this like a theory or something .

The bolded is spot on, if you factor Jacoby Jones, or lack thereof!!

Honoring Earl 34
10-13-2010, 07:37 PM
The bolded is spot on, if you factor Jacoby Jones, or lack thereof!!

I kinda wanted to see Dickerson because you don't need experience to be big and fast . I didn't watch the videos but I bet they were jamming the WRs . AJ on one good foot would have a hard time .

JB
10-13-2010, 07:52 PM
I kinda wanted to see Dickerson because you don't need experience to be big and fast . I didn't watch the videos but I bet they were jamming the WRs . AJ on one good foot would have a hard time .

I don't remember Schaub ever having time to allow a WR to get downfield. The lack of a rushing attack allowed them to attack upfield, and Caldwell and Butler got blown up bad. As did Winston. Lb's were meeting Leach in the backfield.

It seemed to me that Schaub played scared the entire game. Perhaps it was a bad idea to let him watch the G-Men sack Cutler 9 times in the first half the previous week. And Dennison was thoroughly outcoached by Fewell.

J_R
10-13-2010, 07:55 PM
While watching the clip where the Giants put 9 men in the the box, I couldn't help but think/yell in my head... WHY CAN'T THE QB EFFIN AUDIBLE??!?!?!?!

Don't you think opposing teams know that we don't audible? I would stack the box too if I were the Giants. Myers may not have seen it, but I'm sure Schaub did. Audible to a pass play and either take that 9th man out of the box, or torch their pansy asses! GEEZ!


We do some. Not a big "Matt take over at the LOS" type. He checks off some plays and flip plays. - GK

kiwitexansfan
10-13-2010, 07:56 PM
I have to say you and Dale Murphy are doing a fantastic job. I am really enjoying this and I am hoping the Team catches a glimpse of your observations

If the team really need 'help' from a reporter and a blogger, the team is FAR FAR worse than I could possibly imagine.

Texan_Bill
10-13-2010, 08:26 PM
If the team really need 'help' from a reporter and a blogger, the team is FAR FAR worse than I could possibly imagine.

This is true!! No offense towards Barrett or DaleMurphy, but really!

Honoring Earl 34
10-13-2010, 08:26 PM
I don't remember Schaub ever having time to allow a WR to get downfield. The lack of a rushing attack allowed them to attack upfield, and Caldwell and Butler got blown up bad. As did Winston. Lb's were meeting Leach in the backfield.

It seemed to me that Schaub played scared the entire game. Perhaps it was a bad idea to let him watch the G-Men sack Cutler 9 times in the first half the previous week. And Dennison was thoroughly outcoached by Fewell.

A guy like AJ can beat a jam with his strength and get 10 more after the catch . When you have 8 guys by the LOS , he may get more than that if he gets a crease .

thunderkyss
10-13-2010, 08:35 PM
It should be noted that he's mostly reporting what was seen by an NFL OL coach. I'd be interested to hear specifically what you don't agree with and why.

I think it's a lot simpler. When our motion man ended up near the OL, we ran the ball. When the motion man ended up separate from the line, we passed the ball. Our most successful plays were the plays with no motion. They sold out on the run, overloading the play side, and maintaining discipline on the backside. They did not bite on the play-fake, because they knew it was a pass.

I know it's hard to believe, but if you DVR'd it, check it out. The only run plays that got positive yards were the plays we did not motion.

They also played us for the three step drop. Heads up looking for the setup & swiping for the ball.

thunderkyss
10-13-2010, 08:36 PM
The one thing that both LZ and Johnny Harris talked about Monday was the fact that the Giants were not scared of AJ (because of his high ankle sprain). Without Jacoby (athleticism and speed) and with AJ not 100% allowed them to do what they wanted to do, defensively.

(not sure if LZ's blog mentioned that, because I haven't read it yet).

He ran past their secondary for a 48 yard strike.

Texan_Bill
10-13-2010, 08:39 PM
I think it's a lot simpler. When our motion man ended up near the OL, we ran the ball. When the motion man ended up separate from the line, we passed the ball. Our most successful plays were the plays with no motion. They sold out on the run, overloading the play side, and maintaining discipline on the backside. They did not bite on the play-fake, because they knew it was a pass.

I know it's hard to believe, but if you DVR'd it, check it out. The only run plays that got positive yards were the plays we did not motion.

They also played us for the three step drop. Heads up looking for the setup & swiping for the ball.

Actually, that's a really good point. In fact either BSPN or NFLN highlighted the receiver in motion whenever Arian Foster went off for 200+ yards..

JB
10-13-2010, 08:46 PM
A guy like AJ can beat a jam with his strength and get 10 more after the catch . When you have 8 guys by the LOS , he may get more than that if he gets a crease .

On two good legs, yes he can.

JB
10-13-2010, 08:47 PM
I think it's a lot simpler. When our motion man ended up near the OL, we ran the ball. When the motion man ended up separate from the line, we passed the ball. Our most successful plays were the plays with no motion. They sold out on the run, overloading the play side, and maintaining discipline on the backside. They did not bite on the play-fake, because they knew it was a pass.

I know it's hard to believe, but if you DVR'd it, check it out. The only run plays that got positive yards were the plays we did not motion.

They also played us for the three step drop. Heads up looking for the setup & swiping for the ball.


Very good point. We have shown that tendency this year, much moreso than last year.

dalemurphy
10-13-2010, 10:18 PM
This is true!! No offense towards Barrett or DaleMurphy, but really!

It was a nice compliment but I am under no illusions... Now, if Richard Smith was still the D.C... maybe we could provide some insight.

beerlover
10-13-2010, 10:57 PM
Texan coaching staff could make no adjustments until the 2nd half :rake:

GP
10-14-2010, 02:51 AM
Actually, that's a really good point. In fact either BSPN or NFLN highlighted the receiver in motion whenever Arian Foster went off for 200+ yards..

And I think that's because we've never been known for having a ground game.

Our schtick is that we have a killer passing attack.

Once teams saw that our current passing attack is weakened thus far, they have just started stacking the box and stopping the run. We caught Indy at the right time. We thought it was going to be murder by having to play them in the very first game, but it actually saved us. They weren't prepared for us, just as we weren't prepared for the Giants.

And now, we can't pass the ball even if we tried to. It's a double-dip of futility.

I don't think Schaub is buying into Dennison's playcalling. Call me crazy, but Schaub doesn't seem to care anymore. There's been very little creativity and rhythm in the playcalling like we saw with Kyle Shanahan.

Mike Shanahan probably screwed us over when it's all said and done. He went to the Skins, has McNabb, and also grabbed his son to do the playcalling. I don't know how Kyle ends up doing with McNabb...but I think Schaub played better under Kyle than under Dennison.

I think it's a philosophy/style issue with Schaub right now. And he's finally letting it get to him. Big time.

IDEXAN
10-14-2010, 06:50 AM
It's difficult for me to believe that our coaches are so incompetant that they can't make the adjustmenmts or properly prepare our Oline for what the Giants are doing with their defensive linecheming ?
Maybe they are, but I wonder if they haven't done their part and the blame instead is with our players failure to recognize what the Giants are doing or react as quickly as needed ?

thunderkyss
10-14-2010, 07:19 AM
I don't think Schaub is buying into Dennison's playcalling. Call me crazy, but Schaub doesn't seem to care anymore. There's been very little creativity and rhythm in the playcalling like we saw with Kyle Shanahan.

...but I think Schaub played better under Kyle than under Dennison.

I think it's a philosophy/style issue with Schaub right now. And he's finally letting it get to him. Big time.

I can see this. If I remember right, Denver's offense took a sudden dive when Kubiak left, & Dennison took over. However, I didn't think Kubiak would be completely hands off with Dennison here. I didn't think he was completely hands off with Kyle. I figured they would play to their strengths, and our offense would be a blend of the best of Dennison & the best of Kubiak.

So far, it looks to be all Dennison, with a poor interpretation of Kubiak.

thunderkyss
10-14-2010, 07:28 AM
It's difficult for me to believe that our coaches are so incompetant that they can't make the adjustmenmts or properly prepare our Oline for what the Giants are doing with their defensive linecheming ?
Maybe they are, but I wonder if they haven't done their part and the blame instead is with our players failure to recognize what the Giants are doing or react as quickly as needed ?

I think it was pretty obvious that the Giants new exactly what we were doing. They "guessed" right every time we ran the ball. That's not just luck, can't be. If they guess wrong, it would lead to a big play. But to be 6 for 6 (I think that's how many times we ran in the first half), we had to be tipping them off. Plus they didn't bite on a single play action pass.

I can understand it being difficult to figure out how we are tipping our hand in the middle of the game. However, I went back to watch the Dallas game, & it was the same thing. If we had been doing this since Indy, & our coaches hadn't picked up on it, then I am very disappointed in that.

otisbean
10-14-2010, 07:56 AM
I think it was pretty obvious that the Giants new exactly what we were doing. They "guessed" right every time we ran the ball. That's not just luck, can't be. If they guess wrong, it would lead to a big play. But to be 6 for 6 (I think that's how many times we ran in the first half), we had to be tipping them off. Plus they didn't bite on a single play action pass.

I can understand it being difficult to figure out how we are tipping our hand in the middle of the game. However, I went back to watch the Dallas game, & it was the same thing. If we had been doing this since Indy, & our coaches hadn't picked up on it, then I am very disappointed in that.

Hopefully you're right and we are tipping our hand a bit, if that's the case it's any easy fix.

eriadoc
10-14-2010, 09:00 AM
I think it's a lot simpler. When our motion man ended up near the OL, we ran the ball. When the motion man ended up separate from the line, we passed the ball. Our most successful plays were the plays with no motion. They sold out on the run, overloading the play side, and maintaining discipline on the backside. They did not bite on the play-fake, because they knew it was a pass.

I think it was pretty obvious that the Giants new exactly what we were doing. They "guessed" right every time we ran the ball. That's not just luck, can't be. If they guess wrong, it would lead to a big play. But to be 6 for 6 (I think that's how many times we ran in the first half), we had to be tipping them off. Plus they didn't bite on a single play action pass.

I can understand it being difficult to figure out how we are tipping our hand in the middle of the game. However, I went back to watch the Dallas game, & it was the same thing. If we had been doing this since Indy, & our coaches hadn't picked up on it, then I am very disappointed in that.

I think you're kind of missing the point of the video analysis if you're disagreeing with him. He's not explaining why, as you are, he's explaining how they shut the Texans now. Plenty of teams have played us before and knew what we were going to do. Your observation about the motion guy has been going on forever. Teams are smart enough to see it, but you still have to stop it.

Here's another for you - every time Kevin Walter goes in motion and stops at the line of scrimmage, we run the ball to the opposite side while he cuts the backside pursuit. If a casual fan like myself can pick up on this trend, you don't think every NFL coach has? Of course they have. The video analysis presented by LZ is just an exposé on how, not why.

This is also why it's frustrating to hear Kubiak and the players assert that they just have to execute. It's simply not true. They have to adjust when things like that happen.

Jeff S.
10-14-2010, 09:55 AM
They also played us for the three step drop. Heads up looking for the setup & swiping for the ball.

LZ said on the radio that one of the remedies to what the Giants were doing is to go to a straight seven-step drop back passing game.

eriadoc
10-14-2010, 10:21 AM
LZ said on the radio that one of the remedies to what the Giants were doing is to go to a straight seven-step drop back passing game.

That would require some coaching skill. Adjustments are not this staff's strong suit.

NitroGSXR
10-14-2010, 10:47 AM
And I think that's because we've never been known for having a ground game.

Our schtick is that we have a killer passing attack.

Once teams saw that our current passing attack is weakened thus far, they have just started stacking the box and stopping the run. We caught Indy at the right time. We thought it was going to be murder by having to play them in the very first game, but it actually saved us. They weren't prepared for us, just as we weren't prepared for the Giants.

And now, we can't pass the ball even if we tried to. It's a double-dip of futility.

I don't think Schaub is buying into Dennison's playcalling. Call me crazy, but Schaub doesn't seem to care anymore. There's been very little creativity and rhythm in the playcalling like we saw with Kyle Shanahan.

Mike Shanahan probably screwed us over when it's all said and done. He went to the Skins, has McNabb, and also grabbed his son to do the playcalling. I don't know how Kyle ends up doing with McNabb...but I think Schaub played better under Kyle than under Dennison.

I think it's a philosophy/style issue with Schaub right now. And he's finally letting it get to him. Big time.
What I am wondering is... just how committed to the run are we really? For years, I've been hearing Kubiak getting all pent up about the run game and that we are striving to be a run-first team.

Now... Kubiak claims that we abandoned the run when the score hit 21-0. We got off 13 plays by then. 9 of those 13 plays were passes.

I'm not telling him to run the ball or anything but it sure seems Kubiak has abandoned what he has always stood for. Coaching scared if you will. Not too much running for the Giants to stop.

Double Barrel
10-14-2010, 11:23 AM
I think you're kind of missing the point of the video analysis if you're disagreeing with him. He's not explaining why, as you are, he's explaining how they shut the Texans now. Plenty of teams have played us before and knew what we were going to do. Your observation about the motion guy has been going on forever. Teams are smart enough to see it, but you still have to stop it.

Here's another for you - every time Kevin Walter goes in motion and stops at the line of scrimmage, we run the ball to the opposite side while he cuts the backside pursuit. If a casual fan like myself can pick up on this trend, you don't think every NFL coach has? Of course they have. The video analysis presented by LZ is just an exposé on how, not why.

This is also why it's frustrating to hear Kubiak and the players assert that they just have to execute. It's simply not true. They have to adjust when things like that happen.

Good post, man. And on the "just have to execute" mantra, I think it's a cop-out by coaches at least half the time they spew this excuse. It is a tandem relationship, to be certain, but the plays have to be called that the players can execute against the opponent's game plan. Trying to run the ball down the middle with eight in the box is not a matter of execution, but rather a complete failure by coaches to adapt their play-calling.

thunderkyss
10-14-2010, 11:38 AM
Trying to run the ball down the middle with eight in the box is not a matter of execution, but rather a complete failure by coaches to adapt their play-calling.

How many do you think Oakland put in the box?

If you can't run against 8 in the box, you can't run.

Double Barrel
10-14-2010, 11:53 AM
How many do you think Oakland put in the box?

If you can't run against 8 in the box, you can't run.

I agree, but why doesn't the OC give the QB the ability to audible at the line in order to counter this D?

I know it's been mentioned in these forums, but does Schaub have very limited options for audibles or is he allowed more leeway at the LOS?

Shaft75
10-15-2010, 01:08 PM
I agree, but why doesn't the OC give the QB the ability to audible at the line in order to counter this D?

I know it's been mentioned in these forums, but does Schaub have very limited options for audibles or is he allowed more leeway at the LOS?

I've been screaming this for awhile. Along with asking why the hell Studdard is one the team.

Rey
10-15-2010, 03:10 PM
I think you're kind of missing the point of the video analysis if you're disagreeing with him. He's not explaining why, as you are, he's explaining how they shut the Texans now. Plenty of teams have played us before and knew what we were going to do. Your observation about the motion guy has been going on forever. Teams are smart enough to see it, but you still have to stop it.

Here's another for you - every time Kevin Walter goes in motion and stops at the line of scrimmage, we run the ball to the opposite side while he cuts the backside pursuit. If a casual fan like myself can pick up on this trend, you don't think every NFL coach has? Of course they have. The video analysis presented by LZ is just an exposé on how, not why.

This is also why it's frustrating to hear Kubiak and the players assert that they just have to execute. It's simply not true. They have to adjust when things like that happen.

I just wish they could use more imagination.

They don't have to get crazy, but just little wrinkles to throw teams off a bit...

I am not surprised at all that a team can scheme for us offensively and defensively with huge success...

76Texan
10-16-2010, 09:07 AM
I think it's a lot simpler. When our motion man ended up near the OL, we ran the ball. When the motion man ended up separate from the line, we passed the ball. Our most successful plays were the plays with no motion. They sold out on the run, overloading the play side, and maintaining discipline on the backside. They did not bite on the play-fake, because they knew it was a pass.

I know it's hard to believe, but if you DVR'd it, check it out. The only run plays that got positive yards were the plays we did not motion.

They also played us for the three step drop. Heads up looking for the setup & swiping for the ball.

I also disagree with quite a few things LZ (or his father) said. But I also agree with quite a few things they said as well. Don't think I have time to go into all that though. I'll try later (or maybe during the bye week).

As far as our TE motioning, while I agree with TK that we do have that tendency, I am not sure the defense can use it as their dictionary.

I have seen OD or Dreessen motioning and stayed close in to pass protect.
Let say we run about 60 offensive plays a game, 10 of them would have the TE in motion. We keep the TE in to pass protect twice.
The defense "guesses" correctly 8 times.
It does not mean that they can be successful stopping us all 8 times.
On the other hand, they "guess" incorrectly twice.
They play the run while we set up the pass.
They bring the safety up and one of our receivers burn them deep, once for a TD and once for 65yd (all the figures are just examples.)

Do they really want to bank on that tendency of ours?
I'm not so sure about that!

76Texan
10-16-2010, 09:23 AM
On pass plays, they didn't bite on the PA..... just dropped in their zones.

Everybody agrees on this, I think.
And that's discipline on the part of the defense!
But it's not difficult to imagine that some defense want to make sure they don't bite on it.
Afterall, PA is our bread and butter.

And they definitely want to stop the run.
But we do this in many games as well ourselves when we bring a secondary guy up (usually Pollard) into the box.

No matter what scheme the defense has, the key is still "execution".
It's a chess match for sure, it's not like the Texans didn't adjust.
We script (I think) 15 plays to see our the D goes about their business and make adjustment accordingly.
It's back and forth to see which side can stay one step ahead.
A lot of times, I think some of the players just can't keep up with it!

76Texan
10-16-2010, 10:52 AM
OK, I will try one!

Play one with 11:24 to go in the first.
First and 10 on our 46.
Foster 3-yd cut back run somewhere behind Brisiel or Myers.



LZ:
• We are going to start with this play because not only was it the first running play of the game, but it was also an indicator of what the Texans were going to see for the rest of the game.


I think the only future indication in this play I can see as fas as how the Giants D scheme goes is that they were willing to play more single safety, looking to stop the run.
So what, the Texans do it a lot of times (it varies from game to game.)
And isn't that how Pollard makes his living, basically?!?!
LZ:

• While the formation develops for the Texans, watch how the Giants shift and create a five-man front based on where Joel Dreesen ends up. Wherever Dreesen goes, the Giants will line the LB on that side up over Dreesen on the defensive line.
• Make sure and watch the defensive end on the weakside as he changes from a DE to a five-technique (lined up directly over LT Rashad Butler) as Dreesen goes in motion. The reason the Giants are shifting the DE down inside is because the Giants want to tighten up the backside cutback lanes.

They (the Giants) don't do this all the times.
And we do it sometimes (lining up over their tackle)
Or when we play gap control defense we basicallytry to close up all the gaps, looking to cut off every single running lane.
It's just one of several approaches.

LZ:

• Before the snap, you'll see the middle LB and the weakside LB shift over toward the strong side and you'll see the free safety come down into the box as basically an extra LB. The safety is in charge of making sure to add even more contain on the back side.
• Now, on this particular play, Dreesen doesn't block the LB, but instead he has the back-side block across the formation and FB Leach has the block on the LB, but the LB comes across the line of scrimmage and meets him head on, which shuts down the outside and turns the play back inside to where the Giants have schemed to close down the cutback lanes.

We set up an outside zone run to the strong side on our right.
Mainly, how the play develops depends upon the block of Winston and Leach.
(IMO, the run normally would be either inside or outside of Winston, against this defensive formation.)

The SAM went wide, so Leach took him outside.
Foster pressed Winston's heels while eying the MIKE to see where he should cut.
For a moment there, I believe Foster can see the LDE's inside number.
(From what I understant,) in a outside zone run, that's when the RB should cut to the outside.
(but Foster didn't.)

In this play, we kept both Myers and Brisiel on the LDT; therefore, the SAM was unblocked.
(Again, from my thinking,) Foster would have done better faking a move inside Winston, but then cut to the outside where there's daylight.
Pre-snap, Foster knew that AJ was set up on this side such that the FS stayed back (out of respect for AJ). I think the smart money should be on running to this side with AJ blocking the LCB.

As fas as the cutback lane is concerned, so what if the RDE played in tight.
All we needed was a got block from Butler (and got it too!).
In this case, it was a cut block; but Butler can also block in.
When a RDE attacks the weakside B gap too aggressive (as in this case) it only makes it easier for the RB to cut all the way back to the weak side.

The problem here was that Smith's cut block on the back side was far from effective as Butler's;
the RDT got over it easily and made the tackle from behind.

I don't think the D-scheme has a big effect in minimizing this run to a 3-yd gain.
It was simply execution:
- Not a great choice by Foster.
- Not a good block by Smith on the back side.

The one thing I agree is that by bringing the SS up, Dressen had to block him instead of the WILL.
However, if we catch them with a Play Action pass here, it could be disaster for them.
Sure, they still has the SS on the back side, but if he comes in after Schaub, Dresseen will be all alone. If he drops back to follow Dreessen, Schaub would have all day to find either Walter or AJ or even Dreessen.
Also, either Leach or Foster would have plenty of time to snick out of the backfield (especially Foster up the middle.)
LZ:

By having players directly over TE Joel Dreesen and RT Eric Winston, the Giants are able to keep the Texans from combo blocking the DE with Dreesen moving to the next level on the LB. Instead, the Giants are "setting the edge" by attack Dreesen at the line of scrimmage and forcing Winston to block man to man on the five-technique DE.

This is nothing new. We've seen Winston blocking the LDE one-on-one all the times.
In those instances, our TE would block the LB.
I really don't see any big deal here.

LZ
10-16-2010, 04:55 PM
OK, I will try one!

Play one with 11:24 to go in the first.
First and 10 on our 46.
Foster 3-yd cut back run somewhere behind Brisiel or Myers.




I think the only future indication in this play I can see as fas as how the Giants D scheme goes is that they were willing to play more single safety, looking to stop the run.
So what, the Texans do it a lot of times (it varies from game to game.)
And isn't that how Pollard makes his living, basically?!?!

They (the Giants) don't do this all the times.
And we do it sometimes (lining up over their tackle)
Or when we play gap control defense we basicallytry to close up all the gaps, looking to cut off every single running lane.
It's just one of several approaches.

We set up an outside zone run to the strong side on our right.
Mainly, how the play develops depends upon the block of Winston and Leach.
(IMO, the run normally would be either inside or outside of Winston, against this defensive formation.)

The SAM went wide, so Leach took him outside.
Foster pressed Winston's heels while eying the MIKE to see where he should cut.
For a moment there, I believe Foster can see the LDE's inside number.
(From what I understant,) in a outside zone run, that's when the RB should cut to the outside.
(but Foster didn't.)

In this play, we kept both Myers and Brisiel on the LDT; therefore, the SAM was unblocked.
(Again, from my thinking,) Foster would have done better faking a move inside Winston, but then cut to the outside where there's daylight.
Pre-snap, Foster knew that AJ was set up on this side such that the FS stayed back (out of respect for AJ). I think the smart money should be on running to this side with AJ blocking the LCB.

As fas as the cutback lane is concerned, so what if the RDE played in tight.
All we needed was a got block from Butler (and got it too!).
In this case, it was a cut block; but Butler can also block in.
When a RDE attacks the weakside B gap too aggressive (as in this case) it only makes it easier for the RB to cut all the way back to the weak side.

The problem here was that Smith's cut block on the back side was far from effective as Butler's;
the RDT got over it easily and made the tackle from behind.

I don't think the D-scheme has a big effect in minimizing this run to a 3-yd gain.
It was simply execution:
- Not a great choice by Foster.
- Not a good block by Smith on the back side.

The one thing I agree is that by bringing the SS up, Dressen had to block him instead of the WILL.
However, if we catch them with a Play Action pass here, it could be disaster for them.
Sure, they still has the SS on the back side, but if he comes in after Schaub, Dresseen will be all alone. If he drops back to follow Dreessen, Schaub would have all day to find either Walter or AJ or even Dreessen.
Also, either Leach or Foster would have plenty of time to snick out of the backfield (especially Foster up the middle.)

This is nothing new. We've seen Winston blocking the LDE one-on-one all the times.
In those instances, our TE would block the LB.
I really don't see any big deal here.


It looks like you missed the entire point of what I was saying in terms of the solid front.

Rey
10-16-2010, 05:26 PM
This is nothing new. We've seen Winston blocking the LDE one-on-one all the times.
In those instances, our TE would block the LB.
I really don't see any big deal here.

I think the point is that the Giants were able to get into the best position possible to stop us because they sniffed out what we were doing much too easily.

On that specific play you're talking about, it would be much more beneficial to the Texans blocking scheme if they could combo up to the LB instead of having both the TE and the tackle essentially man block.

We want to Zone teams and they kind of prevented us from doing that and turned many of our blocks into man blocks.

Doesn't matter if we've seen it before or if we should be able to block it anyways...

The point is that the Giants put their guys in the best position possible by reading us like a book.

thunderkyss
10-16-2010, 09:34 PM
I think the point is that the Giants were able to get into the best position possible to stop us because they sniffed out what we were doing much too easily.

On that specific play you're talking about, it would be much more beneficial to the Texans blocking scheme if they could combo up to the LB instead of having both the TE and the tackle essentially man block.

We want to Zone teams and they kind of prevented us from doing that and turned many of our blocks into man blocks.

Doesn't matter if we've seen it before or if we should be able to block it anyways...

The point is that the Giants put their guys in the best position possible by reading us like a book.

To add to the point, if they had to play honest & respect the Play Action, that safety/LB would not be able to attack the line in the same fashion. They would have had to wait an extra nth of a second to diagnose. & our second level blockers would have been able to do their job. As it was, no one was able to even get to the second level.

If the ratio is 80/20..... that's way too predictable & a major factor of the problem.

76Texan
10-16-2010, 10:20 PM
I think the point is that the Giants were able to get into the best position possible to stop us because they sniffed out what we were doing much too easily.

On that specific play you're talking about, it would be much more beneficial to the Texans blocking scheme if they could combo up to the LB instead of having both the TE and the tackle essentially man block.

We want to Zone teams and they kind of prevented us from doing that and turned many of our blocks into man blocks.

Doesn't matter if we've seen it before or if we should be able to block it anyways...

The point is that the Giants put their guys in the best position possible by reading us like a book.In this play, the TE Dreessen reverted to the back side and blocked the SS.
If we chose to, we could have had him stay and combo block on the SAM together with Leach before one of them slip out to the MIKE

76Texan
10-16-2010, 10:40 PM
To add to the point, if they had to play honest & respect the Play Action, that safety/LB would not be able to attack the line in the same fashion. They would have had to wait an extra nth of a second to diagnose. & our second level blockers would have been able to do their job. As it was, no one was able to even get to the second level.

If the ratio is 80/20..... that's way too predictable & a major factor of the problem.

Well, let's take some specific examples then.

On our second offensive play of the game, we motioned the TE for the first time.
OD was the Z receiver (right wide-out). Walter was in the slot.
OD went into the motion and settled between Winston and Walter as the ball was snapped.

The RDE was all the way on the other side; he can't see it.

The RDT was also on the other side.
He may have seen it out of the corner of one eye; however, I think it would have been more distraction to him to see where OD settled in at as the ball was snapped. If anything, it would only make him late off the ball.
By the same token, neither the RCB nor the SAM can call out any signal until they know for sure where OD ended up at. That would present the same distraction to the D-linemen as well.

On this play, the ball got batted down because:
We had Leach and Foster in the backfield but Schaub never attempted a faked hand-off.
Our O-line stepped back in pass-pro immediately.

IMO, it was these reads and keys that helped the RDE & RDT, not the fact that OD was in motion.

Rey
10-16-2010, 10:47 PM
In this play, the TE Dreessen reverted to the back side and blocked the SS.
If we chose to, we could have had him stay and combo block on the SAM together with Leach before one of them slip out to the MIKE

I hadn't watched the play and was just going off of you and LZ's comments.



I went back and watched that play and you are right...

I think you are saying that we could have still blocked it the way LZ is saying we wanted to, but from the video it is obvious that we didn't want to do it that way...

I would have to agree with you.

By having players directly over TE Joel Dreesen and RT Eric Winston, the Giants are able to keep the Texans from combo blocking the DE with Dreesen moving to the next level on the LB. Instead, the Giants are "setting the edge" by attack Dreesen at the line of scrimmage and forcing Winston to block man to man on the five-technique DE. Now, on this particular play, Dreesen doesn't block the LB, but instead he has the back-side block across the formation

I think the 3rd or 5th video better describes what LZ is saying, but on the playside I don't see how it's much different than blocking a 3-4 with the OLB up on the LOS.

76Texan
10-16-2010, 10:48 PM
The second play in which one of our TE went into motion is the play that we've been discussing.

Our linemen fired out in run block immediately.
IMO, this is where the D played off of.

And remember, as I've mentioned, this one could have easily been a play action pass.
Schaub would have been able to find Walter for a long gain.
Or he may also find a wide-open Dreessen. (with a good block downfield from Walter, Dreessen could go all the way)

Rey
10-16-2010, 10:54 PM
Well, let's take some specific examples then.

On our second offensive play of the game, we motioned the TE for the first time.
OD was the Z receiver (right wide-out). Walter was in the slot.
OD went into the motion and settled between Winston and Walter as the ball was snapped.

The RDE was all the way on the other side; he can't see it.

The RDT was also on the other side.
He may have seen it out of the corner of one eye; however, I think it would have been more distraction to him to see where OD settled in at as the ball was snapped. If anything, it would only make him late off the ball.
By the same token, neither the RCB nor the SAM can call out any signal until they know for sure where OD ended up at. That would present the same distraction to the D-linemen as well.

On this play, the ball got batted down because:
We had Leach and Foster in the backfield but Schaub never attempted a faked hand-off.
Our O-line stepped back in pass-pro immediately.

IMO, it was these reads and keys that helped the RDE & RDT, not the fact that OD was in motion.

Either way, my point is that we were too predictable. The defense was able to key on what we were doing much too fast.

I could care less what they are keying on. The fact is that we need to mix things up a little more.

But to your point above, the defenders who saw OD motion wouldn't necessarily have to wait for him to settle in to make a call.

Not if we never send him all the way across the formation from the Z position. If they knew where he was going to settle in at before he actually settled in then that would help them.

Furthermore, they could have already expected him to motion before he did so.

That's why the Texans need to mix it up a little bit. Stay ahead of defenses..Don't let them to catch up to you...stay ahead of the game...

Rey
10-16-2010, 10:58 PM
The second play in which one of our TE went into motion is the play that we've been discussing.

Our linemen fired out in run block immediately.
IMO, this is where the D played off of.

And remember, as I've mentioned, this one could have easily been a play action pass.
Schaub would have been able to find Walter for a long gain.
Or he may also find a wide-open Dreessen. (with a good block downfield from Walter, Dreessen could go all the way)

I know which video it is. And I agreed with you that it wasn't a good example of what LZ was describing.

Whether or not it could have been a big gain on a PA is probably moreso a long the lines of what I was saying. For some reason, the Giants weren't overly concerned about the pass on that play...

They keyed on something that let them focus on our run.

If Kubiak had run the PA on that play and confused their defense we wouldn't be talking about all this stuff.

thunderkyss
10-16-2010, 11:25 PM
Not if we never send him all the way across the formation from the Z position. If they knew where he was going to settle in at before he actually settled in then that would help them.


I don't recall us running a play with OD as the Z receiver in a long while. Just him lining up there probably told them what they needed to know. That he will motion to the line & we will run the ball.

Rey
10-16-2010, 11:38 PM
I don't recall us running a play with OD as the Z receiver in a long while. Just him lining up there probably told them what they needed to know. That he will motion to the line & we will run the ball.

You're probably right...


Quick question though...

Have we ever motioned a RB out to wide out and done something other than a QB sneak or a pass down field?

I'd love to see us motion the RB out and throw a screen to the WR on the opposite side or even throw a screen to the RB that motioned out.

thunderkyss
10-16-2010, 11:41 PM
Have we ever motioned a RB out to wide out and done something other than a QB sneak or a pass down field?

I'd love to see us motion the RB out and throw a screen to the WR on the opposite side or even throw a screen to the RB that motioned out.

I believe we've done a screen to Slaton like that once or twice.

I remember one game this year, we motioned Foster out wide, & threw a screen to Owen Daniels. worked pretty good I thought.

Rey
10-16-2010, 11:49 PM
I believe we've done a screen to Slaton like that once or twice.

I remember one game this year, we motioned Foster out wide, & threw a screen to Owen Daniels. worked pretty good I thought.

Ok.

I don't remember that, but good if that is true.

76Texan
10-17-2010, 11:47 AM
It looks like you missed the entire point of what I was saying in terms of the solid front.

I think your main points are:

- The Giants try to not let the Texans combo block before releasing to the second level.

- They also try to tighten the cut back lane.

If I miss something, please tell me.

...

Since Rey mentioned the third play in LZ series, I'd like to get to that one.
As always, I'm only interested in breaking down plays to see how things work (or in this case, not working well.)


This play is on 2nd and 7, right after the one we just discussed about "the solid front".
LZ titled this one "the Giants 5-man line".

It ended up with the same result: a 3-yd run as Foster cut back behind Myers.
The same culprit was Smith with another "not quite effective" cut block, this time on the play side.
Note that both plays gained 3 yds, so neither one were a wash!


LZ:

• On this play, the Giants saw the Texans were going to a 2TE, 2RB and 1 WR set so they decided to to take out a LB and add another defensive linemen to match up with the Texans. In this set, you have a 0-technique nose, two 3-technique DTs and two DEs. Once again, the Giants are sticking with their philosophy of trying to cover up the offensive linemen so that they can't get to the 2nd level on the LBs while also jamming, creating more difficult blocking assignments for the Texans based on alignment.


The 5th lineman they brought in was #71 Tollefson, a 250lb DE.
That's still a little more beef.
But we have two TEs and a big FB.

If we had decided to keep both TE on the same side and run this way (to the right), we could have several combo blocks to choose from, depending on how we want to set up the blocking assignment.

Most likely, we would have Winston and Dreessen combo on the LDE before one of them slip out onto the LLB or the RLB.
Or perhaps we can have Winston stay back to help Brisiel on the LDT, after he had combo with Dreessen on the LDE (that would be 2 combo blocks).

OD will then be on the SS, with Leach coming up for another possible combo
(even though I don't think it will be needed).

If Winston is able to get to the LLB, we would have a great double-team (OD+Leach) on the SS.
If Winston can only get to the RLB, then either OD or Leach would have to get out onto the LLB.

I see these as possible scenarios for our combo-blocking scheme.


LZ:


• As you'll see before the play is snapped, the safety who is following Owen Daniels in motion drops into the box right before the play. The Giants now have nine in the box. Now if the Texans and Arian Foster can find a crease, they could bust this for a huge play, but the Giants maintain their responsibilities and there is nothing there for the Texans


But we sent OD in motion to the left, faked a run to the right, then run a counter to the left.

OD kinda settled just inside Butler and started to the right (together with the whole offense - including Leach and Foster.)
IMO, OD started to the right (just a tad) and did a couple of shuffle steps to sell the RDT Scofield #96 the run to the right (which he bought).
But by doing this, we kept the SS closer to the box.
As OD sprinted out to the left, the SS still had to honor the PA pass.
He squatted, followed OD a few steps but still maintained his discipline by watching the backfield.
He was able to see Leach changing course, coming over to block the RDE.
But he waited until he saw the hand-off to Foster before charging back into the box.
My point: It's not like he went for the run all the way.
He did honor the PA pass first.

On another note, even though the SS did not figure immediately in the play, IMO, we could have OD going up inside the SS instead of sprinting out to the flat.
The SS still has to honor the PA pass, and OD can block him out of the running play as well.

At any rate, once gain, Smith's cut block was rather ineffective.
The RDT was able to contain the outside, turning Foster into the pile.

We actually had Butler combo with Smith before releasing onto the RLB; therefore, the notion that we can't have combo-block is not accurate.
Rather, the question is how well did the combo block work.
In this case, Butler was able to slip out and neutralize the RLB.
However, Smith, even with Butler's help, did not make a good block on the RDT.

A good block by Smith would have allowed Foster to bounce to the outside (on either side of Butler) for a bigger gain.

76Texan
10-17-2010, 11:50 AM
I don't recall us running a play with OD as the Z receiver in a long while. Just him lining up there probably told them what they needed to know. That he will motion to the line & we will run the ball.

No, we have had our TE either at the X or Z position and got a long pass out of those situations.

76Texan
10-17-2010, 11:54 AM
I believe we've done a screen to Slaton like that once or twice.

I remember one game this year, we motioned Foster out wide, & threw a screen to Owen Daniels. worked pretty good I thought.

We run the bubble screen to the RB from time to time.

We also send them long as decoys.
I think we even get a pass or two thrown to them downfiel as well.
(I'll have to check on that!)

76Texan
10-18-2010, 01:18 PM
I think it's a lot simpler. When our motion man ended up near the OL, we ran the ball. When the motion man ended up separate from the line, we passed the ball.

I have not come back to concentrate on the TE in motion in the Giants game, but I'm watching the KC game, and the following is what I observe.
I don't see any tendency one way or another.
So TK, maybe you want to say that the Texans had adjusted?
(If you say that, I think I will have to wait for the off-season to go back and watch all the previous games.)

3 plays in the row to open the second half.

First play 1-10
Dreessen motioned from X position to strong left (next to Butler.)
He stayed and blocked.
PA pass to AJ for 19.

Next play
1-10
OD from X to strong left again.
As the ball was snapped he went accross the motion getting ready to catch a PA pass from Schaub.
Vrabel didn't buy it; he stayed with Schaub and forced him to throw the ball away. Incomplete.
(Schaub had a very small window to dump the ball to OD, but he waited and then it was too late.)

Third play
2-10
Dresseen from Y to strong right (next to Winston.)
Foster ran for 3 but a leg whip penalty was called on Smith.

Next offensive series.

Ward's 38-yd TD run.
OD strong right (next to Winston.)
Dreessen lined up between them, about 1-1/2 yd behind.
He went into motion to strong left (next to Butler) (furthest away from the tackle out of the four plays, it seems).

Third series

2-7
A TE (or was it Walter??? difficult to see) from X to between slot and Butler (closer to Butler, but furtherst away from Butler so far in this quarter.)
Attempted PA pass. Schaub was sacked for a 6yd loss.

1-10
OD from strong left to strong right.
Foster 5-yd run.

Drive extended into 4th quarter
3-1
OD motioned from X to between slot (AJ) and Butler (closer to Butler.)
Swing pass to Foster for 5 and the first down.

1-10
OD from slot right to slot left.
9 yd pass to JJ

2and and goal just outside the 2.
OD motioned from X to between slot (AJ) and Butler (closer to Butler)
Foster ran for a TD

Rey
10-18-2010, 01:23 PM
We ran the exact same play (against the Chiefs) that LZ highlighted in his blog (against the GIants) where the TE motioned to the play side but blocked against the grain to cut off back side pursuit.

So now I really don't know what he was trying to say with that play. The Chiefs and Giants obviously ran two different types of defenses, so yeah...Seems like it's just something we do/did and really didn't have anything to do with how the Giants were lining up...

thunderkyss
10-19-2010, 07:17 AM
We ran the exact same play (against the Chiefs) that LZ highlighted in his blog (against the GIants) where the TE motioned to the play side but blocked against the grain to cut off back side pursuit.

So now I really don't know what he was trying to say with that play. The Chiefs and Giants obviously ran two different types of defenses, so yeah...Seems like it's just something we do/did and really didn't have anything to do with how the Giants were lining up...

We used to do that a lot with Walter. If he lined up in the H-back position, he would crack back on the backside, to cut off the backside pursuit.

We used to also have him come over to the H-back position, and trap the playside DE/rush backer in.

Both were very affective, but I usually saw one or the other over a given period of time.