Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

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

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.
 
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.

LZ said:
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.
 
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)
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!)
 
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
 
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 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.
 
Back
Top