PDA

View Full Version : Did Beli hurt our offense



Malin
07-15-2012, 06:17 PM
It's well known now that in the superbowl he made it clear he wanted to stop Nicks and Cruz. Will every other defense use his statement to defend the Giants?

Fear from such a great coach, speaks higher than watching these men play.

rainierjef
07-15-2012, 06:26 PM
It's well known now that in the superbowl he made it clear he wanted to stop Nicks and Cruz. Will every other defense use his statement to defend the Giants?

Fear from such a great coach, speaks higher than watching these men play.

doubt it we have seen that hynoski can be a receiving threat out of the backfield as well as bradshaw and hopefully wilson. this can be advantageous for the rookie randle; or jerrnigan, hixon and barden whoever wins the 3 wr spot.

GameTime
07-15-2012, 06:29 PM
It's well known now that in the superbowl he made it clear he wanted to stop Nicks and Cruz. Will every other defense use his statement to defend the Giants?

Fear from such a great coach, speaks higher than watching these men play.
dont quite know what you mean?? Wouldnt any defense want to stop Nicks and Cruz...
You think Beliceck was a being a great coach to come up with that one???

jomo
07-15-2012, 06:30 PM
How did stopping Nicks and Cruz work out? If the league wants to follow a losing formula so be it. Everything is fluid and last year's formula is different from what we will see this year. It is a chess match and we play it very well.

giantsfan420
07-15-2012, 06:31 PM
remember tho, ballard got hurt. i think what was key in the sb was that beli felt the disparity from nicks/cruz to the next options was huge.

that wont work now that we got bennett, randle, wilson, healthy hixon, and a 2nd year JJ.

The options after nicks and cruz are gonna be enough to win games for us imo.

RoanokeFan
07-15-2012, 06:51 PM
It's well known now that in the superbowl he made it clear he wanted to stop Nicks and Cruz. Will every other defense use his statement to defend the Giants?

Fear from such a great coach, speaks higher than watching these men play.

The teams we play will watch film and draw up a defensive game plan. Belichick's comments about Nicks and Cruz are just stating the obvious.

fourth&forever
07-15-2012, 06:55 PM
Of course defenses have to focus on Nicks & Cruz first. But that should open opportunities for other guys. And we have an abundance of guys waiting for their chance to shine.

I'm stoked for this season. Can't wait to see who becomes the next great contributor.

GameTime
07-15-2012, 06:58 PM
It's well known now that in the superbowl he made it clear he wanted to stop Nicks and Cruz. Will every other defense use his statement to defend the Giants? Fear from such a great coach, speaks higher than watching these men play.

The teams we play will watch film and draw up a defensive game plan. Belichick's comments about Nicks and Cruz are just <FONT color=#0000ff size=4>stating the obvious.
</FONT></P>


+1</P>

appodictic
07-15-2012, 07:39 PM
How did stopping Nicks and Cruz work out? If the league wants to follow a losing formula so be it. Everything is fluid and last year's formula is different from what we will see this year. It is a chess match and we play it very well.

It worked about as good as "We are going to let eli beat us" did in 2007. Worked great for us!

Toadofsteel
07-15-2012, 07:47 PM
The great thing about the Nicks/Cruz combo is that defenses don't know which one to cover more. You're talking about two #1-level receivers on any team in the league both playing for the same team. It's basically the wideout version of Gronk/Hernandez. Teams that have a super shutdown corner like the Jets are used to putting that corner on the #1 wideout, but doing that against the Giants will leave another #1 wideout wide open. If you devote extra personnel to make sure both are sufficiently covered (like BB did), you leave the field wide open for a 3rd WR, TE, or even the fullback to make a play. And both Nicks and Cruz can catch in traffic if Eli is throwing them the ball...

slipknottin
07-15-2012, 07:56 PM
You can double cover two receivers.

That makes the #3 option, whether its a TE, WR, FB, HB, whatever, a critical component.

That #3 receiver NEEDS to be able to beat single coverage.

Flip Empty
07-15-2012, 10:48 PM
It's well known now that in the superbowl he made it clear he wanted to stop Nicks and Cruz. Will every other defense use his statement to defend the Giants?

Fear from such a great coach, speaks higher than watching these men play.
dont quite know what you mean?? Wouldnt any defense want to stop Nicks and Cruz...
You think Beliceck was a being a great coach to come up with that one???
Yeah, this. People keep referencing that moment as if it was some sort of revelation.

Every defensive gameplan would be geared towards stopping a team's best players.

egyptian420
07-15-2012, 11:46 PM
I highly doubt teams are just now finding this out because of Bellicheck.....anyone who's played Madden could tell you that Nicks and Cruz are our biggest receiving threats

Dorothy
07-16-2012, 12:04 AM
If I remember correctly,and I did watch that SUPERBOWL quite a few times, Mario had two defenders hanging all over him. He was not open, just made a fabulous catch. Loved the guy, sorry he is gone. Thank god we have back-ups, Eli will make them look good.

miked1958
07-16-2012, 12:09 AM
remember tho, ballard got hurt. i think what was key in the sb was that beli felt the disparity from nicks/cruz to the next options was huge.

that wont work now that we got bennett, randle, wilson, healthy hixon, and a 2nd year JJ.

The options after nicks and cruz are gonna be enough to win games for us imo.I've been saying all along that the other options are going to absolutely KILL the opposition. It's going to be so bad they won't know what hit em. The so called media experts say we did nothing in the offseason to upgrade and replace MM and BJ. However JR doesnt upgrade like the eagles or redskins with flashy FA signings.

We do it mostly from within with our draft picks and guys off PA, also guys off scrape heap that were not used correctly by former team. Bennett can be that type guy.. Hixon if he can stay healthy can surprise. JJ and barden have been here and waiting their turn. And we could wind up with two explosive rooks in RR and DW. Let's not forget Scott, brown, Beckum, robinson, Hopkins, Hynoski, Pascoe, and maybe even depalma

JJC7301
07-16-2012, 12:10 AM
If other coaches didn't realize that Nicks and Cruz were the keys to last years offense, then yeah, maybe. And if that's true, then I guess that not too many DC's in the league are all that smart.

redbeardxxv
07-16-2012, 12:16 AM
Actually, he had beaten the CB, and Eli had to put the ball in a pinpoint spot, at the exact moment before the safety could get there. Manningham made a spectacular catch, maintained possession, and managed to stay in bounds, but overshadowing ALL of that was the precision and timing of the throw. Manningham was not "open", but he was ahead of the defender, the safety was half a second too late to help.

NYGinIN
07-16-2012, 12:29 AM
Not every team has the arsenal of defensive weapons to shut down Nicks and Cruz without opening up the tight ends, RB, and other WRs. Yeah, The Pats contained Nicks and Cruz but we came out running wel, short passes, and Manningham really stepped up.

appodictic
07-16-2012, 12:30 AM
Well to be honest Bb did an amazing job. Now we did loose balard and the other TE but, supposedly the patriots have a bad D. They put up a great fight, they stopped the run in the second half, started jamming cruz well, and the passes that Eli did fit in were into tight coverage.

Really the difference of the game was us getting a int and recovering two fumbles although had we not kicked two FGs the game we might have had a wider lead.

appodictic
07-16-2012, 12:31 AM
Well to be honest Bb did an amazing job. Now we did loose balard and the other TE but, supposedly the patriots have a bad D. They put up a great fight, they stopped the run in the second half, started jamming cruz well, and the passes that Eli did fit in were into tight coverage.

Really the difference of the game was us getting a int and recovering two fumbles although had we not kicked two FGs the game we might have had a wider lead.


That is a pretty good effort though for having two FA corners.

BlueSanta
07-16-2012, 03:54 AM
How did stopping Nicks and Cruz work out? If the league wants to follow a losing formula so be it. Everything is fluid and last year's formula is different from what we will see this year. It is a chess match and we play it very well.

While I do not think Beli showed the way to beat our offense, but rather had good persenelle to face or offense, I also do not agree with you.

A couple years ago the Giants, in a loss to the Eagles, were credited by a bunch of commentators (including Colinsworth and Simms) for giving a blueprint on how to beat Vick and the Eagles. I distinctly remember Colinsworth saying this in a Bears vs Eagles, as well as Simms saying it on air another time.

Flip Empty
07-16-2012, 04:37 AM
How did stopping Nicks and Cruz work out? If the league wants to follow a losing formula so be it. Everything is fluid and last year's formula is different from what we will see this year. It is a chess match and we play it very well.

While I do not think Beli showed the way to beat our offense, but rather had good persenelle to face or offense, I also do not agree with you.

A couple years ago the Giants, in a loss to the Eagles, were credited by a bunch of commentators (including Colinsworth and Simms) for giving a blueprint on how to beat Vick and the Eagles. I distinctly remember Colinsworth saying this in a Bears vs Eagles, as well as Simms saying it on air another time.

What, hit him?

That's stopping a player with a unique skill set, not directing attention towards a team's top two wideouts.

SweetZombieJesus
07-16-2012, 07:08 AM
Nicks and Cruz were obviously the two big threats. Pretty sure everybody would want to stop them.

You should remember Belichick's formula for winning SB XXV -- let them have the run but shut down the passing game. It worked pretty well then. Pick your poison, deny them what they do best and make them earn a living on their b-list. In fact that sounds like most defensive game plans.

Belichick was betting that a passing game centered around Pascoe and Manningham was a posion he could live with. And he came one jump ball away from having it work.

yoeddy
07-16-2012, 08:18 AM
It's well known now that in the superbowl he made it clear he wanted to stop Nicks and Cruz. Will every other defense use his statement to defend the Giants?

Fear from such a great coach, speaks higher than watching these men play.
dont quite know what you mean?? Wouldnt any defense want to stop Nicks and Cruz...
You think Beliceck was a being a great coach to come up with that one???
Yeah, this. People keep referencing that moment as if it was some sort of revelation.

Every defensive gameplan would be geared towards stopping a team's best players.

I think that the "revelation" to many was that Eli recognized the defensive plan immediately and made them pay....

jakegibbs
07-16-2012, 08:36 AM
It's well known now that in the superbowl he made it clear he wanted to stop Nicks and Cruz. Will every other defense use his statement to defend the Giants?

Fear from such a great coach, speaks higher than watching these men play.

If they get their power running attack back then it won't do them any good to double team Cruz & Nicks leaving only 5 or 6 in the box. Wilson & Bradshaw will run wild all the way down the field.

bLuereverie
07-16-2012, 09:02 AM
Belli called one great gameplan. That was not the 31st ranked defense that night.

Teams will happily take away the Giants' two most explosive weapons and leave it to the tertiary to beat them each and every time. But that's easier said and done. Will also make it more difficult if the running game gets going again.

Diamondring
07-16-2012, 09:06 AM
I see a lot of posters talk about that third wr and I started we should use the 3 wr set as our primary set and I still say this til this day unless other players setp up witch they will.

giantsfan420
07-16-2012, 10:55 AM
I see a lot of posters talk about that third wr and I started we should use the 3 wr set as our primary set and I still say this til this day unless other players setp up witch they will.

lol. um, hate to break it to ya, but the 3 wr set wasnt anything new and a lot of us knew we could have success bc of the 3 wr's we had...

GMENAGAIN
07-16-2012, 11:05 AM
Yes, I think that our opponents will try to stop Nicks and Cruz. </P>

Diamondring
07-16-2012, 11:38 AM
I see a lot of posters talk about that third wr and I started we should use the 3 wr set as our primary set and I still say this til this day unless other players setp up witch they will.

lol. um, hate to break it to ya, but the 3 wr set wasnt anything new and a lot of us knew we could have success bc of the 3 wr's we had...Hey, look at my information. I have been here since 05 and started to post as GWAT in 07. I never said I created the 3 wr set but said it should be our primary set and that was in 07. I came out with the same thing before preseason 08. and that was using the 3 wr set as our primary set. Do you know what primary means? Have you been here in 08? At that time, most posters talked about Giants should use the ball control offense while I said we should change to a more finess high scoring balance attack.

Also in 08, I predicted that Eli was going to improve, Our offense would be one of the high scoring offenses. At that time when I made the post about those things, know it all posters said no we should still use a run first offense cause that is Giants Foobtall and thats the truth.


No matter if what I said is obvious or not about using the 3 wr set as our primary set, many posters on here said that a ball control is what we needed to use. I also had a conversation about my topics with a coach called Davidkan and he even questioned my post about using the balance attack and how effective it would be. Well he was wrong and I was right.

If the Giants would have used the 3 wr set as their primary set, I bet Burress wouldn't get doubed teamed as much and Hixon would have been a 1,000 yard receiver. He was hot at the time. Yet the Giants kept on using the two back set wich was not the right set since Hedg**** was just only a blocker and Giants neeeded real good receivers.

burier
07-16-2012, 11:46 AM
this is phenominal!

Giants fans are so in love with Bill Belichick that we're actually giving him credit for being made a fool of.

GMENAGAIN
07-16-2012, 12:29 PM
I see a lot of posters talk about that third wr and I started we should use the 3 wr set as our primary set and I still say this til this day unless other players setp up witch they will. lol. um, hate to break it to ya, but the 3 wr set wasnt anything new and a lot of us knew we could have success bc of the 3 wr's we had...Hey, look at my information. I have been here since 05 and <FONT size=5>started to post as GWAT in 07.</FONT> I never said I created the 3 wr set but said it should be our primary set and that was in 07. I came out with the same thing before preseason 08. and that was using the 3 wr set as our primary set. Do you know what primary means? Have you been here in 08? At that time, most posters talked about Giants should use the ball control offense while I said we should change to a more finess high scoring balance attack. Also in 08, I predicted that Eli was going to improve, Our offense would be one of the high scoring offenses. At that time when I made the post about those things, know it all posters said no we should still use a run first offense cause that is Giants Foobtall and thats the truth. No matter if what I said is obvious or not about using the 3 wr set as our primary set, many posters on here said that a ball control is what we needed to use. I also had a conversation about my topics with a coach called Davidkan and he even questioned my post about using the balance attack and how effective it would be. Well he was wrong and I was right. If the Giants would have used the 3 wr set as their primary set, I bet Burress wouldn't get doubed teamed as much and Hixon would have been a 1,000 yard receiver. He was hot at the time. Yet the Giants kept on using the two back set wich was not the right set since Hedg**** was just only a blocker and Giants neeeded real good receivers.</P>


haha . . .I knew it! Glad to have you back GWAT!</P>

TrueBlue@NYC
07-16-2012, 04:01 PM
Well, whatever he did kinda worked. The offense only scored 19 points (20 if they kick the XP instead of going for the 2ptC) so BB had something right going with his scheme. </P>

Malin
07-16-2012, 04:26 PM
I think it is obvious to stop Nicks and Cruz, my O.P. is more directed to the nervous chatter spoke by BB in the games biggest stage by one of the most respected coaches in the game, could spark a all out momentum by coaches that is priority number 1.
I'm not suggesting it will work, pats had no luck in doing so, but pats dont have the greatest secondary anyway. I'm just asking myself and other it could possible open the minds of the non believers and hurt not stop this passing attack.

slipknottin
07-16-2012, 04:27 PM
I would like to point out that the second half of the 49ers game, they did the same thing. Doubled Nicks and Cruz and forced Manningham to beat single coverage. Outside of maybe a couple plays, manningham could not.

BlueSanta
07-16-2012, 04:31 PM
How did stopping Nicks and Cruz work out? If the league wants to follow a losing formula so be it. Everything is fluid and last year's formula is different from what we will see this year. It is a chess match and we play it very well.

While I do not think Beli showed the way to beat our offense, but rather had good persenelle to face or offense, I also do not agree with you.

A couple years ago the Giants, in a loss to the Eagles, were credited by a bunch of commentators (including Colinsworth and Simms) for giving a blueprint on how to beat Vick and the Eagles. I distinctly remember Colinsworth saying this in a Bears vs Eagles, as well as Simms saying it on air another time.

What, hit him?

That's stopping a player with a unique skill set, not directing attention towards a team's top two wideouts.

You make no sense.

"just hit him" was not our strategy and Im sorry you dont remember that.

Furthermore, we DID set the mold. Prior to that game Vick was being considered as a MVP candidate, after he faded quickly mostly because a lot of teams used OUR strategy, or tried, to stop him and made someone else on the offense do it. You can argue his stats have not been the same since that day, especially in the win loss and turnovers. BY forcing them to rely on Mike Vick the pocket passer to beat us, the turnovers began, and the media lovefest with Mike Vick started to crumble.

The Pats used a very smart strategy to stop Nicks and especially Cruz. That strategy did work. After all, it was not the gameplan, just a part of it. A gameplan includes offense, defense, special teams, and other things too to win the game. The Pats overal gameplan failed. However a portion of their gameplan worked, just like our overal gameplan vs the Eagles did not work back then but a portion did. The portion relating to containing Vick DID work. Teams have copied that portion of our gameplan. Teams will try to copy the portion of the Pats gameplan that worked against us. I do not see it being that successful because so few teams have the personel to do what the Pats did to us while at the same time stopping our run game, which should be improved this year.

yoeddy
07-16-2012, 06:38 PM
How did stopping Nicks and Cruz work out? If the league wants to follow a losing formula so be it. Everything is fluid and last year's formula is different from what we will see this year. It is a chess match and we play it very well.

While I do not think Beli showed the way to beat our offense, but rather had good persenelle to face or offense, I also do not agree with you.

A couple years ago the Giants, in a loss to the Eagles, were credited by a bunch of commentators (including Colinsworth and Simms) for giving a blueprint on how to beat Vick and the Eagles. I distinctly remember Colinsworth saying this in a Bears vs Eagles, as well as Simms saying it on air another time.

What, hit him?

That's stopping a player with a unique skill set, not directing attention towards a team's top two wideouts.

I think that the "blueprint for stopping Vick" was something about forcing him to his right (or to his left, I can't remember exactly which)...because after doing their analysis of Vick, it became clear as day that Vick was far less effective at both running and throwing when moving to that side.

In terms of what BB said about Nicks and Cruz, I think Gilbride did an awesome job at knowing that that would be what BB would want his defense to do. Knowing that the Pats would focus their coverage on Nicks and Cruz, Gilbride called a formation that put both Nicks and Cruz on the right side of the field and isolated Manningham on the left. If BB did not tell his defense to focus on Nicks and Cruz, then the play to Manningham might not have been there, because the Pats' safety wouldn't have cheated to the other side as much and would have had better timing to get on top of the throw.

So...BB's "strategy" was predictable, Gilbride anticipated it, and Eli/Mario took full advantage of it...

giantsfan420
07-16-2012, 09:41 PM
How did stopping Nicks and Cruz work out? If the league wants to follow a losing formula so be it. Everything is fluid and last year's formula is different from what we will see this year. It is a chess match and we play it very well.

While I do not think Beli showed the way to beat our offense, but rather had good persenelle to face or offense, I also do not agree with you.

A couple years ago the Giants, in a loss to the Eagles, were credited by a bunch of commentators (including Colinsworth and Simms) for giving a blueprint on how to beat Vick and the Eagles. I distinctly remember Colinsworth saying this in a Bears vs Eagles, as well as Simms saying it on air another time.

What, hit him?

That's stopping a player with a unique skill set, not directing attention towards a team's top two wideouts.

You make no sense.

"just hit him" was not our strategy and Im sorry you dont remember that.

Furthermore, we DID set the mold. Prior to that game Vick was being considered as a MVP candidate, after he faded quickly mostly because a lot of teams used OUR strategy, or tried, to stop him and made someone else on the offense do it. You can argue his stats have not been the same since that day, especially in the win loss and turnovers. BY forcing* them to rely on Mike Vick the pocket passer to beat us, the turnovers began, and the media lovefest with Mike Vick started to crumble.

The Pats used a very smart strategy to stop Nicks and especially Cruz. That strategy did work. After all, it was not the gameplan, just a part of it. A gameplan includes offense, defense, special teams, and other things too to win the game. The Pats overal gameplan failed.* However a portion of their gameplan worked, just like our overal gameplan vs the Eagles did not work back then but a portion did. The portion relating to containing Vick DID work. Teams have copied that portion of our gameplan. Teams will try to copy the portion of the Pats gameplan that worked* against us. I do not see it being that successful because so few teams have the personel to do what the Pats did to us while at the same time stopping our run game, which should be improved this year.




we did set the blue print. in our two meetings in 2010 i believe, we sent a db blitz outside the pocket in vicks face to force him to move right. he was horrible when we did that, like the stats and his play were horrendous. teams copied that and made diff variations and vick hasnt looked near as effective since those first 8 or so weeks when he had that streak.

TucknRolle
07-16-2012, 09:50 PM
Hakeem Nicks had over 100 yds in the Super Bowl. I don't think Beli stopped him at all.

giantsfan420
07-16-2012, 11:39 PM
Hakeem Nicks had over 100 yds in the Super Bowl. I don't think Beli stopped him at all.

yeah i forgot to mention the whole 10 receptions for what was it, 120 yds?

thats why i'd still say nicks is like actually another level above cruz. when teams try to double nicks, he still gets his. its so rare for him to be shut down. with cruz, he has had games where he didnt really produce with the double coverages. the SB, he did his part and had a td and made an impact, but on what, 3 catches for 15 yards?

for cruz to reach nicks level, he will need to have success even vs double coverage schemes, which i believe he can do.

jomo
07-16-2012, 11:57 PM
Hakeem Nicks had over 100 yds in the Super Bowl. I don't think Beli stopped him at all.My point exactly! It is all a chess game and we won. This year has nothing to do with next year.

gmen0820
07-17-2012, 12:14 AM
I wouldn't say the Patriots had good personnel to defend us at all. I think they put up a hell of a fight with their DBs, they were incredibly overmatched.

Either way, doubling Cruz and Nicks is a daunting task for a defense. It is a very compromised defense, would be moreso if Cruz was an outside receiver demanding double coverages, instead of slot brackets -- not to undermine the slot in a "Run-N-Shoot"-like offense. It's (the slot) a very important role in our offense, but we do need a third guy to win against man coverage on the outside. Randle is hopefully the guy to do it.

giantsfan420
07-17-2012, 12:20 AM
I wouldn't say the Patriots had good personnel to defend us at all. I think they put up a hell of a fight with their DBs, they were incredibly overmatched.

Either way, doubling Cruz and Nicks is a daunting task for a defense. It is a very compromised defense, would be moreso if Cruz was an outside receiver demanding double coverages, instead of slot brackets -- not to undermine the slot in a "Run-N-Shoot"-like offense. It's (the slot) a very important role in our offense, but we do need a third guy to win against man coverage on the outside. Randle is hopefully the guy to do it.

dude, u really have a vast amount of football knowledge. you should get into coaching for real. some posts i read, you even school me on and i go wow.
i agree with your post too. but i have noticed a few other times cruz would face double coverage concepts, and would have streaks of not really contributing. its an incredibly difficult task tho, only a few of the best wr's can consistently beat double coverage, imo nicks being one of them.

i think cruz will get to that level tho. he's still pretty raw. people forget that bc of the success he had. dudes entering his 2nd real season lol...skies the limit with him

gmen0820
07-17-2012, 12:26 AM
dudes entering his 2nd real season lol...skies the limit with himThank you, because sometimes I forget this too. It is ridiculous how schooled he is as a 2nd year UDFA.

I mean he is as savvy as any veteran. I remember I had a write up on Cruz a couple weeks ago after rewatching some 2011 games. I hadn't seen one slot receiver who could consistently win at the LOS as often as Cruz. I mean it's these little nuances in his game, his skill set, his deception. I mean I had seen corners flat out lose at the LOS, just open their hips right at the snap.

Cruz will hone those, and other skills. He already has a wide array of beneficial attributes -- including, but not limited to: ball skills, instincts, game speed, hands, concentration.

Really makes me wonder why kids like this go undrafted and unnoticed.

giantsfan420
07-17-2012, 12:42 AM
dudes entering his 2nd real season lol...skies the limit with himThank you, because sometimes I forget this too. It is ridiculous how schooled he is as a 2nd year UDFA.

I mean he is as savvy as any veteran. I remember I had a write up on Cruz a couple weeks ago after rewatching some 2011 games. I hadn't seen one slot receiver who could consistently win at the LOS as often as Cruz. I mean it's these little nuances in his game, his skill set, his deception. I mean I had seen corners flat out lose at the LOS, just open their hips right at the snap.

Cruz will hone those, and other skills. He already has a wide array of beneficial attributes -- including, but not limited to: ball skills, instincts, game speed, hands, concentration.

Really makes me wonder why kids like this go undrafted and unnoticed.

ya know, i agree but i also saw a lil bit i wasnt excited about lets say. during the sb, i rewatched that game a couple times, arrington actually would beat up on cruz. granted, ever wr is gonna have a % of being effectively jammed, and i also noticed that it may have even been planned as a scheme type thing bc nicks had a couple receptions where cruz got jammed effectively by arrington, but nicks used that as a designed screen (which is actually kinda genius by KG) on an inside slant. one play they even replayed it and discussed it. so it may have even been cruz playing possum to a degree, but still, i hadnt really seen cruz get held up at the LOS before, and Arrington was trying his hardest to mug him.

Overall tho, that was so rare to happen throughout the season so maybe it was designed, or maybe cruz has somethng arrington picked up on. actually, id ask u for ur opinion of it. if u want i can give u a link to the SB online commercial free, and i'd like ur thoughts on it...

gmen0820
07-17-2012, 12:49 AM
dudes entering his 2nd real season lol...skies the limit with himThank you, because sometimes I forget this too. It is ridiculous how schooled he is as a 2nd year UDFA.

I mean he is as savvy as any veteran. I remember I had a write up on Cruz a couple weeks ago after rewatching some 2011 games. I hadn't seen one slot receiver who could consistently win at the LOS as often as Cruz. I mean it's these little nuances in his game, his skill set, his deception. I mean I had seen corners flat out lose at the LOS, just open their hips right at the snap.

Cruz will hone those, and other skills. He already has a wide array of beneficial attributes -- including, but not limited to: ball skills, instincts, game speed, hands, concentration.

Really makes me wonder why kids like this go undrafted and unnoticed.

ya know, i agree but i also saw a lil bit i wasnt excited about lets say. during the sb, i rewatched that game a couple times, arrington actually would beat up on cruz. granted, ever wr is gonna have a % of being effectively jammed, and i also noticed that it may have even been planned as a scheme type thing bc nicks had a couple receptions where cruz got jammed effectively by arrington, but nicks used that as a designed screen (which is actually kinda genius by KG) on an inside slant. one play they even replayed it and discussed it. so it may have even been cruz playing possum to a degree, but still, i hadnt really seen cruz get held up at the LOS before, and Arrington was trying his hardest to mug him.

Overall tho, that was so rare to happen throughout the season so maybe it was designed, or maybe cruz has somethng arrington picked up on. actually, id ask u for ur opinion of it. if u want i can give u a link to the SB online commercial free, and i'd like ur thoughts on it...Yeah I'll have to give that a look see. Admittedly I didn't watch the SB as analytically as I'd typically watch a game, just way to much was at stake.

Rewatched it once, but still for the sheer entertainment of it. I'll have to check it out when I get back from vacation, unless it's an iPhone compatible link.