PDA

View Full Version : do you think the Giants become more aggressive when...



giantsfan420
05-22-2012, 03:46 PM
We get a lead. I was just thinking about this bc of the thread about the better offense between the Giants and Saints.

When we get a lead, it seems we become more conservative. I think it has a lot to do with we've been a team with turnovers. These past few years, ive been more trusting of the offense in situations i never was, like 3rd and longs.

I think thats why when we get leads, we become more conservative for ball control and not to really risk anything. A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over. Turns out that when we needed to turn the offense back on late, we couldnt. They were out of rhythm.

I think that tc handled the philosophies well in the past, and even now. I have no issues with him, im a big fan and respect him. But our offense seems to be able to execute all game in closer games, when we get a lead, should we be more aggressive like NO? They arent worried about tunovers as much bc they know they will execute and arent worried a turnover will be able to beat them bc they score a lot being so aggressive.

I trust the offense enough to where i think we could still just run the offense as if it wasa 0-0 and not have to go into convervative 3 n out mode.
I think that issue is the only reason we arent like the top offensive team. Yes i know a top ten offense and kg has made me eat crow, but we could be a top 3 offense consistently with the talent we have....

But i think tc doesnt care about that really, and theres no need to amp it up when ahead bc we do have a history with turnovers and tc is big on ball control...

Just supposing about why NO and NE etc etcto have better offenses

MikeIsaGiant
05-22-2012, 04:08 PM
Run the score baby.


Yeah, I think next year we'll be more aggressive

burier
05-22-2012, 04:35 PM
We hardly had the lead this season.

When we did get the lead it was usually toward the end of the game.

9 wins.

Rams: didn't figure it out until the 4th quarter.

Eagles 1: Played aggressively the whole way.

Cardinals: Played from behind the major majority of the game.

Bills: Played from behind

Dolphins: Played from behind

Pats: Didn't score in the first half..dead heat the whole way.

Cowboys: Dead heat then played from behind.

Jets: Played aggressively with the lead

Cowboys: Took a big lead and perhaps let up a little but you're almost supposed to reel it in when you're up 21 zap.

The moral of the story: When it comes to last season at least, there's nothing there to suggest that we are conservative with a lead since we hardly ever had the lead.

Side note: Some may want to go back and rewatch some of those games last season. I'm hearing alot of fiction about how deep and "stacked" we are.

If we consider what happened in the playoffs we highly aggressive with the lead leading to two sizable victories.

giantsfan420
05-22-2012, 04:43 PM
We hardly had the lead this season.

When we did get the lead it was usually toward the end of the game.

9 wins.

Rams: didn't figure it out until the 4th quarter.

Eagles 1: Played aggressively the whole way.

Cardinals: Played from behind the major majority of the game.

Bills: Played from behind

Dolphins: Played from behind

Pats: Didn't score in the first half..dead heat the whole way.

Cowboys: Dead heat then played from behind.

Jets: Played aggressively with the lead

Cowboys: Took a big lead and perhaps let up a little but you're almost supposed to reel it in when you're up 21 zap.

The moral of the story: When it comes to last season at least, there's nothing there to suggest that we are conservative with a lead since we hardly ever had the lead.

Side note: Some may want to go back and rewatch some of those games last season. I'm hearing alot of fiction about how deep and "stacked" we are.

If we consider what happened in the playoffs we highly aggressive with the lead leading to two sizable victories.

giantsfan420
05-22-2012, 04:46 PM
We hardly had the lead this season.

When we did get the lead it was usually toward the end of the game.

9 wins.

Rams: didn't figure it out until the 4th quarter.

Eagles 1: Played aggressively the whole way.

Cardinals: Played from behind the major majority of the game.

Bills: Played from behind

Dolphins: Played from behind

Pats: Didn't score in the first half..dead heat the whole way.

Cowboys: Dead heat then played from behind.

Jets: Played aggressively with the lead

Cowboys: Took a big lead and perhaps let up a little but you're almost supposed to reel it in when you're up 21 zap.

The moral of the story: When it comes to last season at least, there's nothing there to suggest that we are conservative with a lead since we hardly ever had the lead.

Side note: Some may want to go back and rewatch some of those games last season. I'm hearing alot of fiction about how deep and "stacked" we are.

If we consider what happened in the playoffs we highly aggressive with the lead leading to two sizable victories.

Wait are u saying we are not conservative? Kinda confused with ur post...its not just last year, its been pretty much since day one of the tc campaign, he just wants to ensure we dont give away points while ahead...its just we were having a ton of issues w to's so we got even more conservative when ahead...

I think theres a higher level of trust now and we pro cojld be aggressive and never ket off the gas even ahead by a few possessions

burier
05-22-2012, 04:54 PM
We hardly had the lead this season.

When we did get the lead it was usually toward the end of the game.

9 wins.

Rams: didn't figure it out until the 4th quarter.

Eagles 1: Played aggressively the whole way.

Cardinals: Played from behind the major majority of the game.

Bills: Played from behind

Dolphins: Played from behind

Pats: Didn't score in the first half..dead heat the whole way.

Cowboys: Dead heat then played from behind.

Jets: Played aggressively with the lead

Cowboys: Took a big lead and perhaps let up a little but you're almost supposed to reel it in when you're up 21 zap.

The moral of the story: When it comes to last season at least, there's nothing there to suggest that we are conservative with a lead since we hardly ever had the lead.

Side note: Some may want to go back and rewatch some of those games last season. I'm hearing alot of fiction about how deep and "stacked" we are.

If we consider what happened in the playoffs we highly aggressive with the lead leading to two sizable victories.

Wait are u saying we are not conservative? Kinda confused with ur post...its not just last year, its been pretty much since day one of the tc campaign, he just wants to ensure we dont give away points while ahead...its just we were having a ton of issues w to's so we got even more conservative when ahead...

I think theres a higher level of trust now and we pro cojld be aggressive and never ket off the gas even ahead by a few possessions

I'm saying pertaining to last season you can't say we were concervative at all...We scored pleanty of points and were actually the most explosive team in the NFL.

You can't say that we were conservative with a lead because we never broke a really big lead on anyone until week 17 which like I said you could argue that we became conservative in that one game.

But in the playoffs we didn't become conservative in games against the Falcons and Packers. Completely went for the jugular in both games. Other games were too close to be relevant here.

Now if we're talking historically in TCs run I'd agree with you.

Mind boggling pansy playcalling by Gilbride.

I was just pointing out that this season we seemed to show less of that in the few instances when we had a chance.

TuckYou
05-22-2012, 04:55 PM
Probably not. Same coaches, same philosophy. </P>


When we are up, we take our foot off the gas peddle on offense and play prevent on defense. </P>


Why do you think Eli gets so many come from behind wins. We only push when we are down.</P>

giantsfan420
05-22-2012, 04:58 PM
Probably not. Same coaches, same philosophy. </P>


When we are up, we take our foot off the gas peddle on offense and play prevent on defense. </P>


Why do you think Eli gets so many come from behind wins. We only push when we are down.</P>

yeah i agree, but i dont quite get it. if we trust the offense to do it when behind, when its mroe difficult, than why not when ahead? the offense has improved imho to a point we can trust eli and the offense almost every single play...i see why we'd slow things down when ahead, but vs some offenses, that could bite us in the ace...it did vs philly, and its happened other times too but as another poster mentioned, we trailed almost every game and had 9 regular season wins, we werent playing from ahead that often...

Drez
05-22-2012, 05:03 PM
A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over.
Complete myth. We were pretty balanced.

burier
05-22-2012, 05:06 PM
A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over.
Complete myth. We were pretty balanced.


lol no one can make up their mind about that game.

We ran too much we passed to much.

Truth is we couldn't play D on Vick so we lost.

allentown PA
05-22-2012, 05:08 PM
We get a lead. I was just thinking about this bc of the thread about the better offense between the Giants and Saints.

When we get a lead, it seems we become more conservative. I think it has a lot to do with we've been a team with turnovers. These past few years, ive been more trusting of the offense in situations i never was, like 3rd and longs.

I think thats why when we get leads, we become more conservative for ball control and not to really risk anything. A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over. Turns out that when we needed to turn the offense back on late, we couldnt. They were out of rhythm.

I think that tc handled the philosophies well in the past, and even now. I have no issues with him, im a big fan and respect him. But our offense seems to be able to execute all game in closer games, when we get a lead, should we be more aggressive like NO? They arent worried about tunovers as much bc they know they will execute and arent worried a turnover will be able to beat them bc they score a lot being so aggressive.

I trust the offense enough to where i think we could still just run the offense as if it wasa 0-0 and not have to go into convervative 3 n out mode.
I think that issue is the only reason we arent like the top offensive team. Yes i know a top ten offense and kg has made me eat crow, but we could be a top 3 offense consistently with the talent we have....

But i think tc doesnt care about that really, and theres no need to amp it up when ahead bc we do have a history with turnovers and tc is big on ball control...

Just supposing about why NO and NE etc etcto have better offenses

I agree with everything you've said but this team has not given up many leads under TC...Fassel was a different story...he would get ultra conservative imo.

burier
05-22-2012, 05:14 PM
We get a lead. I was just thinking about this bc of the thread about the better offense between the Giants and Saints.

When we get a lead, it seems we become more conservative. I think it has a lot to do with we've been a team with turnovers. These past few years, ive been more trusting of the offense in situations i never was, like 3rd and longs.

I think thats why when we get leads, we become more conservative for ball control and not to really risk anything. A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over. Turns out that when we needed to turn the offense back on late, we couldnt. They were out of rhythm.

I think that tc handled the philosophies well in the past, and even now. I have no issues with him, im a big fan and respect him. But our offense seems to be able to execute all game in closer games, when we get a lead, should we be more aggressive like NO? They arent worried about tunovers as much bc they know they will execute and arent worried a turnover will be able to beat them bc they score a lot being so aggressive.

I trust the offense enough to where i think we could still just run the offense as if it wasa 0-0 and not have to go into convervative 3 n out mode.
I think that issue is the only reason we arent like the top offensive team. Yes i know a top ten offense and kg has made me eat crow, but we could be a top 3 offense consistently with the talent we have....

But i think tc doesnt care about that really, and theres no need to amp it up when ahead bc we do have a history with turnovers and tc is big on ball control...

Just supposing about why NO and NE etc etcto have better offenses

I agree with everything you've said but this team has not given up many leads under TC...Fassel was a different story...he would get ultra conservative imo.

was it a 21 point lead we blew to Vince Young?

And the Miracle at the meadowlands 2 immediately come to mind.

I think TC and Fassel are pretty close to par in the blow a lead category.

sharick88
05-22-2012, 05:18 PM
Killer instinct was an issue for years, until the jets game this past season. They got leads and stayed aggressive. Ask Green Bay, Dallas, and Atlanta if the current Giants lack killer instinct.

giantsfan420
05-22-2012, 05:28 PM
A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over.
Complete myth. We were pretty balanced.


I agree but also feel differently. I know its not as drastic as sometimes impled round here, but iirc, we did have some possessions of run run pass attempt ah just take the sack...we really didnt try to force anything. I know we had that late td to boss, but besides that, imho we went into conservative mode

allentown PA
05-22-2012, 05:30 PM
We get a lead. I was just thinking about this bc of the thread about the better offense between the Giants and Saints.

When we get a lead, it seems we become more conservative. I think it has a lot to do with we've been a team with turnovers. These past few years, ive been more trusting of the offense in situations i never was, like 3rd and longs.

I think thats why when we get leads, we become more conservative for ball control and not to really risk anything. A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over. Turns out that when we needed to turn the offense back on late, we couldnt. They were out of rhythm.

I think that tc handled the philosophies well in the past, and even now. I have no issues with him, im a big fan and respect him. But our offense seems to be able to execute all game in closer games, when we get a lead, should we be more aggressive like NO? They arent worried about tunovers as much bc they know they will execute and arent worried a turnover will be able to beat them bc they score a lot being so aggressive.

I trust the offense enough to where i think we could still just run the offense as if it wasa 0-0 and not have to go into convervative 3 n out mode.
I think that issue is the only reason we arent like the top offensive team. Yes i know a top ten offense and kg has made me eat crow, but we could be a top 3 offense consistently with the talent we have....

But i think tc doesnt care about that really, and theres no need to amp it up when ahead bc we do have a history with turnovers and tc is big on ball control...

Just supposing about why NO and NE etc etcto have better offenses

I agree with everything you've said but this team has not given up many leads under TC...Fassel was a different story...he would get ultra conservative imo.

was it a 21 point lead we blew to Vince Young?

And the Miracle at the meadowlands 2 immediately come to mind.

I think TC and Cough are pretty close to par in the blow a lead category.

the eagles game they blew was a freak type thing imo..there was 8 min left when philly made their run...If you blame that loss on TC being conservative, then your doing a bad job of understanding what your watching on Sunday. The young game was 21-0 in the 4th I believe..the defense played great for 3 quarters..I can see why they would be conservatie in that game and trust the defense...it just didnt work out.

burier
05-22-2012, 05:37 PM
We get a lead. I was just thinking about this bc of the thread about the better offense between the Giants and Saints.

When we get a lead, it seems we become more conservative. I think it has a lot to do with we've been a team with turnovers. These past few years, ive been more trusting of the offense in situations i never was, like 3rd and longs.

I think thats why when we get leads, we become more conservative for ball control and not to really risk anything. A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over. Turns out that when we needed to turn the offense back on late, we couldnt. They were out of rhythm.

I think that tc handled the philosophies well in the past, and even now. I have no issues with him, im a big fan and respect him. But our offense seems to be able to execute all game in closer games, when we get a lead, should we be more aggressive like NO? They arent worried about tunovers as much bc they know they will execute and arent worried a turnover will be able to beat them bc they score a lot being so aggressive.

I trust the offense enough to where i think we could still just run the offense as if it wasa 0-0 and not have to go into convervative 3 n out mode.
I think that issue is the only reason we arent like the top offensive team. Yes i know a top ten offense and kg has made me eat crow, but we could be a top 3 offense consistently with the talent we have....

But i think tc doesnt care about that really, and theres no need to amp it up when ahead bc we do have a history with turnovers and tc is big on ball control...

Just supposing about why NO and NE etc etcto have better offenses

I agree with everything you've said but this team has not given up many leads under TC...Fassel was a different story...he would get ultra conservative imo.

was it a 21 point lead we blew to Vince Young?

And the Miracle at the meadowlands 2 immediately come to mind.

I think TC and Cough are pretty close to par in the blow a lead category.

the eagles game they blew was a freak type thing imo..there was 8 min left when philly made their run...If you blame that loss on TC being conservative, then your doing a bad job of understanding what your watching on Sunday. The young game was 21-0 in the 4th I believe..the defense played great for 3 quarters..I can see why they would be conservatie in that game and trust the defense...it just didnt work out.

I was addressing the portion of your comment about giving up leads.

You said that Fassel gave up leads but Coughlin doesnt as much.

My position on how conservative we are has been stated previously in this thread.

allentown PA
05-22-2012, 05:41 PM
We get a lead. I was just thinking about this bc of the thread about the better offense between the Giants and Saints.

When we get a lead, it seems we become more conservative. I think it has a lot to do with we've been a team with turnovers. These past few years, ive been more trusting of the offense in situations i never was, like 3rd and longs.

I think thats why when we get leads, we become more conservative for ball control and not to really risk anything. A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over. Turns out that when we needed to turn the offense back on late, we couldnt. They were out of rhythm.

I think that tc handled the philosophies well in the past, and even now. I have no issues with him, im a big fan and respect him. But our offense seems to be able to execute all game in closer games, when we get a lead, should we be more aggressive like NO? They arent worried about tunovers as much bc they know they will execute and arent worried a turnover will be able to beat them bc they score a lot being so aggressive.

I trust the offense enough to where i think we could still just run the offense as if it wasa 0-0 and not have to go into convervative 3 n out mode.
I think that issue is the only reason we arent like the top offensive team. Yes i know a top ten offense and kg has made me eat crow, but we could be a top 3 offense consistently with the talent we have....

But i think tc doesnt care about that really, and theres no need to amp it up when ahead bc we do have a history with turnovers and tc is big on ball control...

Just supposing about why NO and NE etc etcto have better offenses

I agree with everything you've said but this team has not given up many leads under TC...Fassel was a different story...he would get ultra conservative imo.

was it a 21 point lead we blew to Vince Young?

And the Miracle at the meadowlands 2 immediately come to mind.

I think TC and Cough are pretty close to par in the blow a lead category.

the eagles game they blew was a freak type thing imo..there was 8 min left when philly made their run...If you blame that loss on TC being conservative, then your doing a bad job of understanding what your watching on Sunday. The young game was 21-0 in the 4th I believe..the defense played great for 3 quarters..I can see why they would be conservatie in that game and trust the defense...it just didnt work out.

I was addressing the portion of your comment about giving up leads.

You said that Fassel gave up leads but Coughlin doesnt as much.

My position on how conservative we are has been stated previously in this thread.

my point is I feel Fassel was much more at fault for some of the blown leads than TC has been.

jax5338
05-22-2012, 05:55 PM
I agree with the OPs notion that when the giants are up by 10 or more points the offense can tend to go into "3 and out mode."

idk why but it seems like they run their worst plays when up by a lot, presumably trying to kill clock and not turn it over. ive also felt this way for years, they just lack a killer insticnt. packers, saints and pats are always throwing the ball and sticking it to teams with whatever works even in the fourth quarter with comfy leads.

i think the gmen have to adopt that mentality that they are crushing a weaker team and should continue that until the final gun, dont just try to run out the clock and "not lose" because weve seen it get them into trouble in the past.

i hate it when they take there foot off the gas to avoid turnovers and such because ultimately, it does lead to quick turnover on downs.

Drez
05-22-2012, 06:07 PM
A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over.
Complete myth. We were pretty balanced.


lol no one can make up their mind about that game.

We ran too much we passed to much.

Truth is we couldn't play D on Vick so we lost.
Yeah, that's the extent of it. We also didn't play the 4th quarter with as big of a lead as people claim, either. After we put the score up to 31-10, the Eagles answered with a TD and then had the onsides kick... and scored again. By the time we got the ball back, it was 31-24. So, that 21 point lead we were playing with never actually existed. at least from an offensive standpoint.

giantsfan420
05-22-2012, 06:09 PM
I agree with the OPs notion that when the giants are up by 10 or more points the offense can tend to go into "3 and out mode."

idk why but it seems like they run their worst plays when up by a lot, presumably trying to kill clock and not turn it over. ive also felt this way for years, they just lack a killer insticnt. packers, saints and pats are always throwing the ball and sticking it to teams with whatever works even in the fourth quarter with comfy leads.

i think the gmen have to adopt that mentality that they are crushing a weaker team and should continue that until the final gun, dont just try to run out the clock and "not lose" because weve seen it get them into trouble in the past.

i hate it when they take there foot off the gas to avoid turnovers and such because ultimately, it does lead to quick turnover on downs.

My thoughts exactly nicely said. I think its an aspect that does seperate no and ne etc etc from us

gumby742
05-22-2012, 06:14 PM
To those when who want to run up the score when we're up big, next time we lose a big lead, don't cry because that's what happens when you eat 1 minute off the clock per posession. Much better to rely on your defense to get stops while minimzing the # of posessions they get. If you continue to throw throw throw, you will be giving them what 3+ more posessions?</P>


On top of that, when you throw, there's more chance for a turnover to happen.</P>


Sure, we've had meltdowns in the past but those are a rarity. If I were the coaching staff, I'd do the same thing. It's a bit like the prevent defense philosophy. Hate on it all you want, but it's a sound strategy.</P>

BeatYale
05-22-2012, 06:26 PM
We get a lead. I was just thinking about this bc of the thread about the better offense between the Giants and Saints.

When we get a lead, it seems we become more conservative. I think it has a lot to do with we've been a team with turnovers. These past few years, ive been more trusting of the offense in situations i never was, like 3rd and longs.

I think thats why when we get leads, we become more conservative for ball control and not to really risk anything. A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over. Turns out that when we needed to turn the offense back on late, we couldnt. They were out of rhythm.

I think that tc handled the philosophies well in the past, and even now. I have no issues with him, im a big fan and respect him. But our offense seems to be able to execute all game in closer games, when we get a lead, should we be more aggressive like NO? They arent worried about tunovers as much bc they know they will execute and arent worried a turnover will be able to beat them bc they score a lot being so aggressive.

I trust the offense enough to where i think we could still just run the offense as if it wasa 0-0 and not have to go into convervative 3 n out mode.
I think that issue is the only reason we arent like the top offensive team. Yes i know a top ten offense and kg has made me eat crow, but we could be a top 3 offense consistently with the talent we have....

But i think tc doesnt care about that really, and theres no need to amp it up when ahead bc we do have a history with turnovers and tc is big on ball control...

Just supposing about why NO and NE etc etcto have better offenses

The Saints were 58% on 3rd down conversions. We were 37%. That's a HUGE difference. Obviously our issue is that we aren't sustaining enough drives compared to those other teams. They also have higher Red Zone TD scoring %'s than us also. The Packers and Patriots were 65%, Saints 59%, we were 54%.

I think it's a combination of things. Even though everyone was pleased with the offense this year I still think we lacked consistency. Which has been an ongoing issue throughout the years. A lot of the damage we did came from big plays. There weren't enough long sustained drives obviously.

giantsfan420
05-22-2012, 06:58 PM
We get a lead. I was just thinking about this bc of the thread about the better offense between the Giants and Saints.

When we get a lead, it seems we become more conservative. I think it has a lot to do with we've been a team fwith turnovers. These past few years, ive been more trusting of the offense in situations i never was, like 3rd and longs.

I think thats why when we get leads, we become more conservative for ball control and not to really risk anything. A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over. Turns out that when we needed to turn the offense back on late, we couldnt. They were out of rhythm.

I think that tc handled the philosophies well in the past, and even now. I have no issues with him, im a big fan and respect him. But our offense seems to be able to execute all game in closer games, when we get a lead, should we be more aggressive like NO? They arent worried about tunovers as much bc they know they will execute and arent worried a turnover will be able to beat them bc they score a lot being so aggressive.

I trust the offense enough to where i think we could still just run the offense as if it wasa 0-0 and not have to go into convervative 3 n out mode.
I think that issue is the only reason we arent like the top offensive team. Yes i know a top ten offense and kg has made me eat crow, but we could be a top 3 offense consistently with the talent we have....

But i think tc doesnt care about that really, and theres no need to amp it up when ahead bc we do have a history with turnovers and tc is big on ball control...

Just supposing about why NO and NE etc etcto have better offenses

The Saints were 58% on 3rd down conversions. We were 37%. That's a HUGE difference. Obviously our issue is that we aren't sustaining enough drives compared to those other teams. They also have higher Red Zone TD scoring %'s than us also. The Packers and Patriots were 65%, Saints 59%, we were 54%.

I think it's a combination of things. Even though everyone was pleased with the offense this year I still think we lacked consistency. Which has been an ongoing issue throughout the years. A lot of the damage we did came from big plays. There weren't enough long sustained drives obviously.
good info thanks. I agree gumby i dont think we should change anything, we atill have a potent offense. We have maybe a few collapses when going conserve mode over the past five years.
i think tho it s part of the reason no, gb, ne have better offenses

BeatYale
05-22-2012, 09:24 PM
We get a lead. I was just thinking about this bc of the thread about the better offense between the Giants and Saints.

When we get a lead, it seems we become more conservative. I think it has a lot to do with we've been a team fwith turnovers. These past few years, ive been more trusting of the offense in situations i never was, like 3rd and longs.

I think thats why when we get leads, we become more conservative for ball control and not to really risk anything. A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over. Turns out that when we needed to turn the offense back on late, we couldnt. They were out of rhythm.

I think that tc handled the philosophies well in the past, and even now. I have no issues with him, im a big fan and respect him. But our offense seems to be able to execute all game in closer games, when we get a lead, should we be more aggressive like NO? They arent worried about tunovers as much bc they know they will execute and arent worried a turnover will be able to beat them bc they score a lot being so aggressive.

I trust the offense enough to where i think we could still just run the offense as if it wasa 0-0 and not have to go into convervative 3 n out mode.
I think that issue is the only reason we arent like the top offensive team. Yes i know a top ten offense and kg has made me eat crow, but we could be a top 3 offense consistently with the talent we have....

But i think tc doesnt care about that really, and theres no need to amp it up when ahead bc we do have a history with turnovers and tc is big on ball control...

Just supposing about why NO and NE etc etcto have better offenses

The Saints were 58% on 3rd down conversions. We were 37%. That's a HUGE difference. Obviously our issue is that we aren't sustaining enough drives compared to those other teams. They also have higher Red Zone TD scoring %'s than us also. The Packers and Patriots were 65%, Saints 59%, we were 54%.

I think it's a combination of things. Even though everyone was pleased with the offense this year I still think we lacked consistency. Which has been an ongoing issue throughout the years. A lot of the damage we did came from big plays. There weren't enough long sustained drives obviously.
good info thanks. I agree gumby i dont think we should change anything, we atill have a potent offense. We have maybe a few collapses when going conserve mode over the past five years.
i think tho it s part of the reason no, gb, ne have better offenses

Yeah if we expand on what we did last year there should be significant improvement. I'd like to see us use the RB's as receivers a lot more. I feel that our offense is too 'vertical' which is risky at times. During the 49ers playoff game there were a few throws in coverage down field that were nearly intercepted. The 49ers DB's were their own worst enemies colliding into each other.

miked1958
05-22-2012, 10:41 PM
Run the score baby.


Yeah, I think next year we'll be more aggressiveAgreed

MattyD21
05-22-2012, 11:46 PM
A good offense is the best defense

Drez
05-22-2012, 11:58 PM
A good offense is the best defense
Tell that to the Saints that have lost playoff games to Seattle and SF in recent years.

MattyD21
05-23-2012, 12:16 AM
A good offense is the best defense
Tell that to the Saints that have lost playoff games to Seattle and SF in recent years.


yeah i'll be sure to give them a call

Idkaname
05-23-2012, 10:36 AM
This! The giants always play not to lose!

TuckYou
05-23-2012, 10:52 AM
A classic, and ****ty example was vs philly in the meltdown. We became a different team trying to run the clock down so we wouldnt run it over.
Complete myth. We were pretty balanced.
lol no one can make up their mind about that game. We ran too much we passed to much. Truth is we couldn't play D on Vick so we lost.</P>


We choked, plain and simple, on offense, defense, special teams and coaching. Everyone choked.</P>

TuckYou
05-23-2012, 10:54 AM
It's a bit like the prevent defense philosophy. Hate on it all you want, but it's a sound strategy.</P>


</P>


Id say 80% of the time, prevent defense doesnt work for us. It doesnt prevent anything. Our aggresive, get after the QB, defense works much better and wins us games.</P>

gumby742
05-23-2012, 01:36 PM
It's a bit like the prevent defense philosophy. Hate on it all you want, but it's a sound strategy.</P>


</P>


Id say 80% of the time, prevent defense doesnt work for us. It doesnt prevent anything. Our aggresive, get after the QB, defense works much better and wins us games.</P>


</P>


I think if we were able to run the ballat all last year, it wouldn't have been a problem. I think the only year I can think of where we were consistently holding big leads and blowing people out, it was 2008 - when we had a great run game.</P>


I remember the Arizona Cardinals also had issues holding leads a few years back, because of the same thing - they couldn't run.</P>

ShakeNBake
05-23-2012, 03:13 PM
Of course we are more aggressive when we have the lead. Our defense is designed around maintaining a lead, so that we may utilize the strongest aspect of our defense, the pass rush. Offensively we do not seem to change our game plan as much when we have the lead, with the exception of more running plays vs passes with the lead.