PDA

View Full Version : Healthy Nicks



GiantLegend
01-02-2013, 06:02 AM
For Christmas I finally got my copy of Road to XLVI on DVD and just got around to watching the first two games tonight.

I have to say, a huge hole this year was Nicks never really being healthy. Watching him in the playoffs last year was something to behold, and a huge part of why we went where we did. Cruz is fine, I'd take Nicks over him any day though, but he can't do it alone. I think Randle stepped up well and I still like Barden, but Nicks is an absolute beast.

Not sure if we would have won an extra game or two with him in there more and feeling good, but it surely would have given us an advantage.

I know there are plenty of other things that could be picked out from how things looked so great last year and so ugly this year in terms of play, (since the season had identitcal recrods), although there is more to a record. The d-line doesn't even look like the same guys and it is.

With the emergence of Wilson and Brown this year, I realize there is no room for Jacobs back here, but I loved that guy and the intensity he ran with.

Sorry for the reminiscing and rambling, this is fun to watch. It makes me sad our DE trio who killed it last year didn't perform this year and is likely broken up.

What can be the reason though, aside from Nicks being 100% which I still believe is huge, for a group of guys to fall off so much? Yeah, they won the same amount of games and lost the same amount, and even last year before the SB run they looked suspect, but it felt different. Were they the same team, just not able to get hot at the right time?

flashnando
01-02-2013, 01:39 PM
Dont worry because Nicks will be playing for a contract next year and expect him to have a huge year. He has his eyes on the prize $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

moosedrool
01-02-2013, 01:53 PM
Belicheck was miked up for the super bowl and during the game he said "don't let Cruz or Nicks beat you". So they doubled both and Manningham came through. This year, they single covered Nicks and he still couldn't make plays. The number one reason the offense struggled this year.

flashnando
01-02-2013, 01:55 PM
Belicheck was miked up for the super bowl and during the game he said "don't let Cruz or Nicks beat you". So they doubled both and Manningham came through. This year, they single covered Nicks and he still couldn't make plays. The number one reason the offense struggled this year.

I don't know about it being the number one reason because then you would have to blame the coaching staff for letting him play hurt and hurting the offense. The running game was way to inconsistent and didn't allow the passing game to develop much, there are many reasons why the offense sucked and it wasn't on Nicks alone.

freeoscar
01-02-2013, 02:01 PM
Nicks not getting consistent separation and having breakaway ability was the big difference on O this year, no question. During the time Brown was healthy the running game was better than last year, and the TE position was better as well. Giants didn't win any shootouts this year - it was all or nothing, and against good Ds (SF excepted) it was mostly nothing.
dems the breaks. at least they were all healthy for last year's playoffs.

Giantz4Life
01-02-2013, 02:10 PM
I always wished they would have given Randle a bigger role earlier in the season when Nicks was out. Obviously this is hindsight, but I guess the CS felt he wasn't ready yet. It seemed like they were way too eager to get Nicks back on the field and it ended up hurting us. Combine that with a shaky O-Line and inconsistent play from Eli and there's our struggling inconsistent offense.

RoanokeFan
01-02-2013, 02:56 PM
Belicheck was miked up for the super bowl and during the game he said "don't let Cruz or Nicks beat you". So they doubled both and Manningham came through. This year, they single covered Nicks and he still couldn't make plays. The number one reason the offense struggled this year.

You can't point to Nicks as the # 1 reason the offense struggled. That's just not true.

Rudyy
01-02-2013, 02:58 PM
You can't point to Nicks as the # 1 reason the offense struggled. That's just not true.Actually it is somewhat true, Coughlin even came out and said Nicks being injured definitely limited our offense. Don't get me wrong, other factors were involved but Nicks injured did do damage.

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 02:59 PM
You can't point to Nicks as the # 1 reason the offense struggled. That's just not true.Wether it's true or not, there is a number one reason. What would you say it is, if you were to comment on it?

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 02:59 PM
Belicheck was miked up for the super bowl and during the game he said "don't let Cruz or Nicks beat you". So they doubled both and Manningham came through. This year, they single covered Nicks and he still couldn't make plays. The number one reason the offense struggled this year.Very well said moosedrool, for what it's worth, I agree 100%.

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 03:01 PM
Wether it's true or not, there is a number one reason. What would you say it is, if you were to comment on it?

Eli. Part of that is the poor play of the O-Line, but Manning wasn't good this year. He still has the lowest lows of any good QB out there.

RoanokeFan
01-02-2013, 03:04 PM
Wether it's true or not, there is a number one reason. What would you say it is, if you were to comment on it?

I don't think there is a # 1 reason. It's a combination of reasons to include the OLine, Eli, the lack of a consistent running game, Nicks being injured, dropped passes.

RoanokeFan
01-02-2013, 03:05 PM
In golf or tennis you are responsible for what YOU do. Not so in football.

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 03:07 PM
I don't think there is a # 1 reason. It's a combination of reasons to include the OLine, Eli, the lack of a consistent running game, Nicks being injured, dropped passes.Yeah but it's hard to say that without acknowledging that perhaps one issue affected the team more than others. I wouldn't say each of those issues were 20% of the problem, but I guess that's fair if you see it like that. I guess evenness goes against my philosophy ;)

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 03:09 PM
In golf or tennis you are responsible for what YOU do. Not so in football.I'd agree with that, every unit has an intangible effect on the other. We'll have great difficulty fully grasping what the extent of the effect, positive or negative is, but we can speculate on it. It's fun! lol

RoanokeFan
01-02-2013, 03:19 PM
Yeah but it's hard to say that without acknowledging that perhaps one issue affected the team more than others. I wouldn't say each of those issues were 20% of the problem, but I guess that's fair if you see it like that. I guess evenness goes against my philosophy ;)

Let's take the offensive line, as an example. You have five guys who need to work together for an amount of time before they can be effective. When we had O'Hara, Seubert, Snee, Mackenzie, and Diehl were an elite "group" of average or better than average individual layers. When interviewed you got a sense that they knew what each one would do in any given situation. They played together for some 8/9 years without a significant injury.

Since then, we've tried to get back to that Oline status and haven't quite gotten there yet. We've got some players now who can get the job done, but injuries have taken their toll on the line working together. Diehl and Snee are the last remnants of the monster OLine we had and they are showing the rigors of longevity. It makes screen passes more difficult to execute when you have to plug and play.

It's just hard to point to ONE GUY and say AH HA.

RoanokeFan
01-02-2013, 03:21 PM
Yeah but it's hard to say that without acknowledging that perhaps one issue affected the team more than others. I wouldn't say each of those issues were 20% of the problem, but I guess that's fair if you see it like that. I guess evenness goes against my philosophy ;)

When Eli is off, serious bad **** happens lol

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 03:33 PM
Let's take the offensive line, as an example. You have five guys who need to work together for an amount of time before they can be effective. When we had O'Hara, Seubert, Snee, Mackenzie, and Diehl were an elite "group" of average or better than average individual layers. When interviewed you got a sense that they knew what each one would do in any given situation. They played together for some 8/9 years without a significant injury.

Since then, we've tried to get back to that Oline status and haven't quite gotten there yet. We've got some players now who can get the job done, but injuries have taken their toll on the line working together. Diehl and Snee are the last remnants of the monster OLine we had and they are showing the rigors of longevity. It makes screen passes more difficult to execute when you have to plug and play.

It's just hard to point to ONE GUY and say AH HA.

It's true that everything works hand in hand, but, to me, it's easy to point at Eli as the reason this team underachieved. He had 10 games where he threw for one TD or less, including a 5-game stretch where he had 2 total TDs and a 3-game stretch where he had 0 TDs. He was too inconsistent and really it's this inconsistency which prevents him from being mentioned in that QB class with Brady, Rodgers, Peyton, etc. etc. Eli still makes some of the dumbest throws I've ever seen which for a guy who has been around as long as he has, which just blows my mind.

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 03:54 PM
Let's take the offensive line, as an example. You have five guys who need to work together for an amount of time before they can be effective. When we had O'Hara, Seubert, Snee, Mackenzie, and Diehl were an elite "group" of average or better than average individual layers. When interviewed you got a sense that they knew what each one would do in any given situation. They played together for some 8/9 years without a significant injury.

Since then, we've tried to get back to that Oline status and haven't quite gotten there yet. We've got some players now who can get the job done, but injuries have taken their toll on the line working together. Diehl and Snee are the last remnants of the monster OLine we had and they are showing the rigors of longevity. It makes screen passes more difficult to execute when you have to plug and play.

It's just hard to point to ONE GUY and say AH HA.Yeah, I definitely see what you're saying, but we lost a serious baller in Nicks. He was ineffective all year, and the formula we used offensively last year was seriously compromised. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Nicks' ineffectiveness due to injury is the number one tangible reason -- or better yet, factor, in why our offense wasn't as potent as we're accustomed to it being.

TroyArcher
01-02-2013, 03:58 PM
Nicks injury and the decline of the pass rush are reasons # 1 and 1A.

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 04:00 PM
Nicks injury and the decline of the pass rush are reasons # 1 and 1A.Team-wide, yes, I'd definitely agree with that.

The passing game, and the pass rush are the focal points on our team. When one of those isn't up to par, we experience structural strain, and we aren't exactly stable everywhere else.

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 04:03 PM
The Nicks injury did not play as big a part as you are making it sound. Sure it hurt, but Nicks isn't an indispensable player.

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 04:06 PM
The Nicks injury did not play as big a part as you are making it sound. Sure it hurt, but Nicks isn't an indispensable player.Behind Eli, Nicks is as indispensable as it gets. Same with JPP.

We're talking about the two premier units of our team. That's the foundation, and the formula for the NY Giants success.

Rudyy
01-02-2013, 04:08 PM
The Nicks injury did not play as big a part as you are making it sound. Sure it hurt, but Nicks isn't an indispensable player.http://sulia.com/c/new-york-giants/f/3c019392-24c5-46e5-b14a-aac92bee9798/?source=twitter

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 04:13 PM
Behind Eli, Nicks is as indispensable as it gets. Same with JPP.

We're talking about the two premier units of our team. That's the foundation, and the formula for the NY Giants success.

I would argue the collapse of the O-Line is a much bigger factor. It helped contribute to a subpar Eli year and an inconsistent run game. Nicks is a good player, but I truly believe if Randle had been inserted into the lineup a month ago, we would have seen Nicks-like production out of him. Maybe not quite as good, but close.

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 04:13 PM
http://sulia.com/c/new-york-giants/f/3c019392-24c5-46e5-b14a-aac92bee9798/?source=twitterSo clear when they were showing replays of him during the Ravens game. One ****ty Ravens corner absolutely dominating Nicks one on one, it was a sad sight.

It was even evident in Atlanta, where in one of the interceptions, Atlanta put FS T. DeCoud on him with no problems. A freaking FS on one of the most dominant split-ends in the league. He was lucky if he was 70% at his best this season.

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 04:14 PM
http://sulia.com/c/new-york-giants/f/3c019392-24c5-46e5-b14a-aac92bee9798/?source=twitter

The link isnt working for me but you are free to paraphrase.

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 04:17 PM
So clear when they were showing replays of him during the Ravens game. One ****ty Ravens corner absolutely dominating Nicks one on one, it was a sad sight.

It was even evident in Atlanta, where in one of the interceptions, Atlanta put FS T. DeCoud on him with no problems. A freaking FS on one of the most dominant split-ends in the league. He was lucky if he was 70% at his best this season.

Blame the coaches for running him out there. Of course any offense is going to be easier to stop when they keep running out an injured WR. My point is put Randle out in those spots and the offense runs more efficiently. It was a dumb coaching move, period.

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 04:17 PM
I would argue the collapse of the O-Line is a much bigger factor. It helped contribute to a subpar Eli year and an inconsistent run game. Nicks is a good player, but I truly believe if Randle had been inserted into the lineup a month ago, we would have seen Nicks-like production out of him. Maybe not quite as good, but close.The OL improved in many ways since last season. Our Tackle play was leaps and bounds above last year's.

As for Randle, I really don't want to comment on that. Nicks was clearly ineffective this year. I can't say for certain that Randle would have been an improvement, especially since reports coming out of the Giants locker room was that Randle was not picking up the offense as anticipated, and he was having some difficulties.

With that said, I'm still not convinced that Randle couldn't have offered any upgrade over Nicks, because Nicks was playing awful the majority of the year. How much of an upgrade though, I'm not sure, so I can't really gauge how much our offense would have benefitted.

moosedrool
01-02-2013, 04:19 PM
Another reason I believe the Nicks injury was the #1 reason for the offensive struggles:

2012 PFF final grades
Beatty +22.4
Boothe +8.2
Baas +3.3
Snee +12.8
Diehl -6.8
Locklear -2.0

2011 PFF final grades
Beatty +5.0
Boothe -7.3
Baas -8.2
Snee -7.2
Diehl -40.0
Mckenzie -12.2

Pretty good improvement, even Diehl.

Rudyy
01-02-2013, 04:19 PM
The link isnt working for me but you are free to paraphrase."...were giving him tremendous credit for what hes done and the way hes tried to play each and every week. The fact of the matter is the production is so limited that its hurt our overall production. Look at the plays he made last year and how important they were to our success.

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 04:19 PM
[QUOTE=gmen0820;650231]The OL improved in many ways since last season. Our Tackle play was leaps and bounds above last year's.
QUOTE]

You don't really believe this, do you?

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 04:21 PM
Blame the coaches for running him out there. Of course any offense is going to be easier to stop when they keep running out an injured WR. My point is put Randle out in those spots and the offense runs more efficiently. It was a dumb coaching move, period.Okay, and that's fine that you're bringing up the coaching criticism now. If that's really how you feel, then claim that coaching was the top reason for our offensive struggles.

Again, we're not sure how much Randle would have benefitted us. Let's not take what we saw from him in week 17 vs a secondary that gave up a league-worst 33 TDs, and translate that over to the Atlanta, and Baltimore game.

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 04:23 PM
You don't really believe this, do you?Dispute it. League low in sacks allowed, and look at the improvement in the run game as well.

The only thing that noticeably declined from last year was the amount of responsibility we were able to put on our WR's shoulders.

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 04:23 PM
"...we’re giving him tremendous credit for what he’s done and the way he’s tried to play each and every week. The fact of the matter is the production is so limited that it’s hurt our overall production. Look at the plays he made last year and how important they were to our success.”

I'm not questioning the guy's heart. I'm questioning the decision to play him, its nothing to do with Nicks. It was a tactical error that ultimately hurt the Giants. You saw what guys like Barden and Randle were capable of doing in his place, so it wasnt like they didn't have any other choices. They were stubborn. They figured that Nicks at 70% or whatever was better than 100% of anybody else and they were wrong.

moosedrool
01-02-2013, 04:23 PM
Nicks injury and the decline of the pass rush are reasons # 1 and 1A.

Agree. Late last year we had three healthy stud WR's and three healthy stud pass rushers on the field. You can't double all three, and you saw the result.

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 04:25 PM
2012 167 total pressures in 568 pass plays (29.4%)

Just found this gem out last night. Completely fits with everything I've said about the offense for the past week, or so.

Actually, I think you told me it, moosedrool.

Rudyy
01-02-2013, 04:26 PM
I'm not questioning the guy's heart. I'm questioning the decision to play him, its nothing to do with Nicks. It was a tactical error that ultimately hurt the Giants. You saw what guys like Barden and Randle were capable of doing in his place, so it wasnt like they didn't have any other choices. They were stubborn. They figured that Nicks at 70% or whatever was better than 100% of anybody else and they were wrong.Oh well in that case yes, you have a point. I thought you were trying to say Nicks playing hurt didn't have a negative impact on this team.

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 04:27 PM
The league low in sacks is more a product of Eli. He gets rid of the ball quickly, sometimes to the detriment of the Giants. He was under siege much more this year than last year, I believe.

moosedrool
01-02-2013, 04:28 PM
Just found this gem out last night. Completely fits with everything I've said about the offense for the past week, or so.

Actually, I think you told me it, moosedrool.

Riverboat76, the offensive line, while still mediocre, played better in 2012:

2012 167 total pressures in 568 pass plays (29.4%)
2011 221 total pressures in 627 pass plays (35.2% highest % in the NFL)

You can't use the "Eli gets rid of the ball quickly" argument when total pressures are used to grade an offensive line.

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 04:28 PM
Oh well in that case yes, you have a point. I thought you were trying to say Nicks playing hurt didn't have a negative impact on this team.

Obviously the injury has an impact. My point is that the effect of the injury WOULD HAVE BEEN FELT MUCH LESS if they had just played Randle or Barden in his place.

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 04:39 PM
The league low in sacks is more a product of Eli. He gets rid of the ball quickly, sometimes to the detriment of the Giants. He was under siege much more this year than last year, I believe.Okay, so then why was Eli you're #1 reason for our struggles a few posts back? And no, the OL improved, in all phases. People undermine how putrid it was last year, and how much Eli and the WRs picked up the slack. That was our winning formula, and without healthy Nicks this year, it was flawed, as you can see.

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 04:39 PM
Eli also had 1000 less passing yards this year.
Less passing yards means less big plays.
Less big plays means less time to throw.

Eli never takes sacks, and thats a tribute to him. Put Carr behind that line and how many sacks are there?

moosedrool
01-02-2013, 04:41 PM
Less big plays means less time to throw.

No, less big plays because Nicks was hurt.

BlueReign
01-02-2013, 04:42 PM
If Hakeem Nicks was healthy this year the Giants would be playing next week. But injuries are a part of football.

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 04:44 PM
Less big plays means less time to throw.Huh? Are you at least conceding that our OL improved?

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 04:45 PM
If Hakeem Nicks was healthy this year the Giants would be playing next week. But injuries are a part of football.Yes, correct. I'm not trying to make excuses for this team, just giving my $.02 on the matter, maybe even try to keep things in perspective.

BlueReign
01-02-2013, 04:46 PM
Yes, correct. I'm not trying to make excuses for this team, just giving my $.02 on the matter, maybe even try to keep things in perspective.
I completely agree with your analysis. Won't get an argument here haha.

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 04:47 PM
I completely agree with your analysis. Won't get an argument here haha.Good!!!!! *flexes [internet] muscles*

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 04:50 PM
Huh? Are you at least conceding that our OL improved?

Less big plays this year means he had less time to throw this year. What's hard to understand about that?

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 04:51 PM
Less big plays because the coaches allowed an unhealthy Nicks to play. Not the same thing.

gmen0820
01-02-2013, 04:52 PM
Less big plays this year means he had less time to throw this year. What's hard to understand about that?Maybe I'm just drawing a blank, I've been like this all day. I'm failing to see the correlation.

RoanokeFan
01-02-2013, 04:53 PM
Yeah, I definitely see what you're saying, but we lost a serious baller in Nicks. He was ineffective all year, and the formula we used offensively last year was seriously compromised. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Nicks' ineffectiveness due to injury is the number one tangible reason -- or better yet, factor, in why our offense wasn't as potent as we're accustomed to it being.

All true. I just think a lot went wrong and we couldn't recover. I don't see losing Nicks as a reason Eli was so erratic at times, for example. I do think the OLine had more to do with that.

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 04:55 PM
All true. I just think a lot went wrong and we couldn't recover. I don't see losing Nicks as a reason Eli was so erratic at times, for example. I do think the OLine had more to do with that.

Thank you. Somebody making sense, finally.

Eli had 1000 less yards than last year. The tackle positions were swinging gates. There was no continuity with the constant shuffling.

Nicks being hurt was part of it, but the coaches decision to not replace him was the culprit there.

moosedrool
01-02-2013, 04:57 PM
The tackle positions were swinging gates.

If you think the tackles were swinging gates you are clueless.

2012 PFF final grades
Beatty +22.4 (he's a tackle LOL)
Boothe +8.2
Baas +3.3
Snee +12.8
Diehl -6.8
Locklear -2.0

2011 PFF final grades
Beatty +5.0
Boothe -7.3
Baas -8.2
Snee -7.2
Diehl -40.0
Mckenzie -12.2

RoanokeFan
01-02-2013, 05:00 PM
If you think the tackles were swinging gates you are clueless.

2012 PFF final grades
Beatty +22.4 (he's a tackle LOL)
Boothe +8.2
Baas +3.3
Snee +12.8
Diehl -6.8
Locklear -2.0

2011 PFF final grades
Beatty +5.0
Boothe -7.3
Baas -8.2
Snee -7.2
Diehl -40.0
Mckenzie -12.2

The leftt side of the OLine is not the problem

Riverboat76
01-02-2013, 05:07 PM
Nicks is a good player, but he is not the reason the Giants aren't in the playoffs. And if his good health is a necessary component for the Giants to have success, then I feel sorry for the Giants. He's a guy who is going to miss a few games a year with injury, while playing injured in others. This is who he is. And I've got news for all of you, we've already got his replacement on the roster.

The_ One
01-02-2013, 06:40 PM
The #1 reason our offense played poorly was the offensive line.

GiantLegend
01-02-2013, 06:41 PM
I like what alot of you have said about playing him hurt, it did us no good. We had Hixon, when healthy, playing pretty well, and Randle. I would wince watching him run out there.

I agree with Roanoke, Eli having such an erratic year cannot be blamed on Nicks injury. Sometimes you don't have a great year, it happens. I think Nicks would have been a huge benefit for Eli, though.

I don't agree he's an easy replacement. Watching the playoff DVD and seeing when healthy what a difference maker he is really made me realize it. Just one year off from being a playoff stud. I'd argue Cruz is more replaceable. A smaller fast slot receiver who makes some stupid drops. He can be frustrating and that's fully healthy. Nicks injury is the only reason for his poorer play.

rar57
01-02-2013, 06:43 PM
Then why in the hell was he still in the games. This professional football, someone else should have been in the games, maybe even the guys, Eli threw too all week. This is just pure bad coaching, and it falls on Coghlan. A healthy receiver who had practiced would have been far more effective than what Nicks brought to the table this year, If Coghlan has a fault, this is it, he relies on his picked starters too long. Nicks hurt this offense, far more than he helped. That wasn't his fault but the receiving coach or Coghlan. Basically Eli had Cruz and an unsure handed tight end to throw too. The Giants don't throw to the rb, so you see what happened to the offense, poor line play and all.

moosedrool
01-02-2013, 07:19 PM
If Coghlan has a fault, this is it, he relies on his picked starters too long. Nicks hurt this offense, far more than he helped.

I agree. I'm a TC, PF, and KG supporter, and a big believer in coaching staff continuity. But I wish they realized Nicks was the problem before week 17 (Nicks only played 1 snap, Randle played 55 snaps in week 17).

"Eli Manning (http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/5526/eli-manning) and Tom Coughlin loved seeing Nicks gutting it out. But Manning conceded that the lack of practice reps with his top receiver affected the offense’s effectiveness."

" It just wasn’t that simple this year, and it obviously can affect an offense when one of your number one receivers is not playing to the level that we know he can, because of an injury.”

cva14
01-02-2013, 09:38 PM
Yeah our line can pass block but they can't move people out for the run with brute force when we need it, so if Nicks is nicked up and has lost half a step, you're right Nicks was a big loss (as maybe Manningham was too), but that doesn't explain why we can't reliably run the ball. We haven't got the OL for it.

JJC7301
01-02-2013, 11:59 PM
Nicks is absolutely one of the top WR's in the game when healthy. I'd love to see him and Cruz with Big Blue for years to come.

gmen0820
01-03-2013, 12:17 AM
Nicks is absolutely one of the top WR's in the game when healthy. I'd love to see him and Cruz with Big Blue for years to come.Our offense when they are playing at full strength is just a work of art.

CDN_G-FAN
01-03-2013, 12:26 AM
Blame the coaches for running him out there. Of course any offense is going to be easier to stop when they keep running out an injured WR. My point is put Randle out in those spots and the offense runs more efficiently. It was a dumb coaching move, period.

again, that's such a gross over simplification.

how can you throw confidentially to randle if he's not picking things up? how can you throw to him if you're not sure he's going to read the defense and run the right route?

if randle was a clear improvement of course they'd put him out there. but there were numerous reports saying randle wasn't putting in the effort nor was he understanding the offense like the coaches wanted (including veiled comments from Cruz about how important preparation is if you want to get out on the field, and who would know better than him?).

it wasn't dumb coaching. its the dumbing down of the game by fans so they can feel like these problems are simple when they're not.

CDN_G-FAN
01-03-2013, 12:28 AM
Our offense when they are playing at full strength is just a work of art.

with this option route offense, 3 talented targets, and a running game, how do you stop this offense?

injuries and inexperience of some of the pieces is what holds it back, and increasingly the offensive line, although seeing their run blocking late in the season, it was a massive improvement over last year.

gmen0820
01-03-2013, 12:33 AM
with this option route offense, 3 talented targets, and a running game, how do you stop this offense?

injuries and inexperience of some of the pieces is what holds it back, and increasingly the offensive line, although seeing their run blocking late in the season, it was a massive improvement over last year.Run game improved overall, attempts were almost identical, but the YPA was way up. The OL overall really improved from last year, and it sucks to have not seen Nicks-Cruz-Randle/Hixon tearing **** up as a result.

When your split end isn't demanding those coverages, or even beating single coverage, the offense ceases to dominate with any consistency whatsoever.

Rusty192
01-03-2013, 12:34 AM
with this option route offense, 3 talented targets, and a running game, how do you stop this offense?Easy, penalties lol

Penalties made us lose at least three recent games that we could have won this year. imo it wasn't so much our O-line being horrible, but them committing penalties that our crippled offense couldn't recover from.

ny06
01-03-2013, 12:43 AM
Easy, penalties lol

Penalties made us lose at least three recent games that we could have won this year. imo it wasn't so much our O-line being horrible, but them committing penalties that our crippled offense couldn't recover from.
The one play that comes to mind is when Beatty held Cole in the 1st eagles game that negated a big first down.

Rusty192
01-03-2013, 12:56 AM
The one play that comes to mind is when Beatty held Cole in the 1st eagles game that negated a big first down.Agreed. It seemed whenever our offense would get rolling, we would stall because of a penalty at an inopportune time. It's almost impossible to recover from that. And with our offense being hobbled in key positions as it was, we'd be out of games before we even knew what happened.