PDA

View Full Version : Scott, Da'rel 1 yd.



ibbill
11-30-2011, 09:41 AM
Guy was to fast. He beat Snee his blocker to the spot and N.O. blew the play up.

TC crucial play in the game and he throws a rookie who's had about 5 runs all year.Go figure.

Redeyejedi
11-30-2011, 09:46 AM
Unfortunately this is the problem I saw on Da'rel Scott's college tape. The guy just doesnt have the feel for how holes develop. His vision and instinctsare sub par and its why he wasnt a higher draft pick because physically speaking he is an outstanding prospect. Still at this point Id play him more snaps. I would try to get him the ball in the passing game though. Anything to try to get him in space out on the perimeter

MikeIsaGiant
11-30-2011, 09:47 AM
Guy was to fast. He beat Snee his blocker to the spot and N.O. blew the play up.

TC crucial play in the game and he throws a rookie who's had about 5 runs all year.Go figure.

Good point, too much pressure on the kid right away, he shouldn't have played that role so quickly. He needed time to adjust, and that means give him carries before garbage time.

Coaching is just so dumb

JesseJames
11-30-2011, 11:17 AM
it looks like Scott proved the coaches right, he isn't ready...

MikeIsaGiant
11-30-2011, 12:23 PM
it looks like Scott proved the coaches right, he isn't ready...

Scott also proved the coaches wrong, they are dumb.

You don't play a rookie RB when your down so many points. He feels the pressure, you need veteran experience in that type of situation

yoeddy
11-30-2011, 12:26 PM
Guy was to fast. He beat Snee his blocker to the spot and N.O. blew the play up.

TC crucial play in the game and he throws a rookie who's had about 5 runs all year.Go figure.

Sort of like how he used Smith and Boss in the Super Bowl...

egyptian420
11-30-2011, 12:33 PM
I thought the kid was pretty darn good on returns, he almost took one back.

TrueBlue@NYC
11-30-2011, 12:37 PM
Funny, how people adjust their views from play to play on these boards.

If we had BJ or Ware in on that play and it failed, these same guys would be screaming that we didn't put Scott in the game.

You can't bash a guy for underutilizing rookies, then at the same time complain that he used a rookie in a certain situation.

yatitle
11-30-2011, 01:24 PM
Funny, how people adjust their views from play to play on these boards. If we had BJ or Ware in on that play and it failed, these same guys would be screaming that we didn't put Scott in the game. You can't bash a guy for underutilizing rookies, then at the same time complain that he used a rookie in a certain situation.</P>


Winner, winner.</P>

GameTime
11-30-2011, 01:28 PM
it looks like Scott proved the coaches right, he isn't ready... Scott also proved the coaches wrong, they are dumb. You don't play a rookie RB when your down so many points. He feels the pressure, you need veteran experience in that type of situation</P>


maybe you didnt know it but Bradshaw was a rookie in th 07 season......when they won the SB. </P>


Scott is ready to play.....he just made a mistake.</P>


If it were Ware who fumbled how many would be crying...."When are they going to put Scott in the game".....please. The guy ****ed up.....so what. </P>

ELIistheFRANCHISE
11-30-2011, 01:39 PM
Guy was to fast. He beat Snee his blocker to the spot and N.O. blew the play up. TC crucial play in the game and he throws a rookie who's had about 5 runs all year.Go figure.</P>


I do not agree with your assessment of the coaching plan, but I do agree with your point about scott's lack of patience. Snee definately was setting it up and Darel outran snee. I just watched it yesterday a couple times and noticed the same thing. Chalk it up as rookie growing pains.</P>

yoeddy
11-30-2011, 01:45 PM
Guy was to fast. He beat Snee his blocker to the spot and N.O. blew the play up. TC crucial play in the game and he throws a rookie who's had about 5 runs all year.Go figure.</P>


I do not agree with your assessment of the coaching plan, but I do agree with your point about scott's lack of patience.* Snee definately was setting it up and Darel outran snee.* I just watched it yesterday a couple times and noticed the same thing.* Chalk it up as rookie growing pains.</P>

The reason why you put Scott in there is because of his speed. If you wanted a guy to follow his blockers, you put in Ware. If you wanted a guy to push the pile, you put in Jacobs.

It was 3rd and 1...clearly Scott was put in to use his speed to get to the outside and gun it for the first down.

BlueSanta
11-30-2011, 02:27 PM
There is another huge problem people are neglecting to mention.

Scott has 5 carries this year. He had 1 fumble this week and he also put the ball on the ground last week on his 1st carry. the play was ruled dead but the replay showed it was close to , if not a fumble. So he has 5 carries and has put the ball on the ground 2 times. He also had a fumble problem at 1 point in college.

There is a reason this kid isnt getting more carries.

jax5338
11-30-2011, 02:31 PM
ok so scott might have a fumble problem, while everybody else has a "gain no yardage" problem. and btw, after scott's fumble, jacobs fumbled on his next carry if anybody remembers. lucky for him he went down right on top of it. my point is, does it matter right now? behind this oline i feel like scott is the only player who can create his own yards, followed by ware, then jacobs. jacobs is just too slow.

ELIistheFRANCHISE
11-30-2011, 02:42 PM
Guy was to fast. He beat Snee his blocker to the spot and N.O. blew the play up. TC crucial play in the game and he throws a rookie who's had about 5 runs all year.Go figure.</P>


I do not agree with your assessment of the coaching plan, but I do agree with your point about scott's lack of patience. Snee definately was setting it up and Darel outran snee. I just watched it yesterday a couple times and noticed the same thing. Chalk it up as rookie growing pains.</P>


The reason why you put Scott in there is because of his speed. If you wanted a guy to follow his blockers, you put in Ware. If you wanted a guy to push the pile, you put in Jacobs. It was 3rd and 1...clearly Scott was put in to use his speed to get to the outside and gun it for the first down.</P>


Disagree, I doubt they called a direct snap sweep to scott just for him to "gun it for the first down". That is actually pretty ridiculous. Actually, Coughlin was like "get in there, run past your blockers and disregard the basic knowledge taught in pop warner known as waiting for blocks to develop" He had blocks getting set up and he pulled the trigger to fast, hence the failed play. He waits for Snee to take on the defenders and his speed can get us a extra 5 or 6 yards, but NO since he decided to try to "gun it" himself we failed miserably. A running back must have discipline and wait for his blocks to develop.</P>

ibbill
11-30-2011, 02:43 PM
You would wonder if he has a problem holding on to the ball why draft him. Go figure.

MikeIsaGiant
11-30-2011, 02:44 PM
it looks like Scott proved the coaches right, he isn't ready... Scott also proved the coaches wrong, they are dumb. You don't play a rookie RB when your down so many points. He feels the pressure, you need veteran experience in that type of situation</P>


maybe you didnt know it but Bradshaw was a rookie in th 07 season......when they won the SB. </P>


Scott is ready to play.....he just made a mistake.</P>


If it were Ware who fumbled how many would be crying...."When are they going to put Scott in the game".....please. The guy ****ed up.....so what. </P>

And I agree with you man, he's a rookie, you don't put him in a spot like that. If you want to play Scott, play him when the game was 0-0 not when we need 18 points to catch up.

chelseadal
11-30-2011, 02:47 PM
Funny, how people adjust their views from play to play on these boards.

If we had BJ or Ware in on that play and it failed, these same guys would be screaming that we didn't put Scott in the game.

You can't bash a guy for underutilizing rookies, then at the same time complain that he used a rookie in a certain situation.

Great post and agree completely. Some of these guys are great at criticizing AFTER the fact. And of course always blame the coach. Yeah right.

NYs FURY
11-30-2011, 06:29 PM
Guy was to fast. He beat Snee his blocker to the spot and N.O. blew the play up.

TC crucial play in the game and he throws a rookie who's had about 5 runs all year.Go figure.

If I remember correctly it appeared to me Scott was confused on where he was supposed to line up on that play. He was looking towards Eli then he looked at the location he was going to run in to. He gave away that play.

Redeyejedi
11-30-2011, 06:35 PM
You would wonder if he has a problem holding on to the ball why draft him. Go figure.He had a fumbling problem early in his career at Maryland. He fell on draft day because he lacks vision. He doesnt recognize holes and he doesnt know how to follow blocks

ibbill
11-30-2011, 06:49 PM
You would wonder if he has a problem holding on to the ball why draft him. Go figure.He had a fumbling problem early in his career at Maryland. He fell on draft day because he lacks vision. He doesnt recognize holes and he doesnt know how to follow blocks

perfect how about NYG they should draft him then.

T-Murda84
11-30-2011, 06:49 PM
You would wonder if he has a problem holding on to the ball why draft him. Go figure.He had a fumbling problem early in his career at Maryland. He fell on draft day because he lacks vision. He doesnt recognize holes and he doesnt know how to follow blocks

And the sad thing is people here believe its just rookie growing pains. Having a feel for the holes and having the vision to see it is just something that is suppose to be natural....u cant teach that. If u look at Demarco Murray...he has the patience, vision, and the physical ability to be a full time back. Scott will only be more of a scatback on 3rd downs.

appodictic
11-30-2011, 09:38 PM
I have been calling for scott recently,but... This was the first time jacobs was effective. So it makes perfect sense we brought in scott.

In any case it is his fault for fumbling but really a shame our lame pulling blockers can not make it to the spot before the runner. Dscott has what 8 yards to run and they have 4. Maybe he thought it was jacobs and it would be three more seconds before he got to the hole.

ELIistheFRANCHISE
11-30-2011, 09:43 PM
I have been calling for scott recently,but... This was the first time jacobs was effective. So it makes perfect sense we brought in scott.

In any case it is his fault for fumbling but really a shame our lame pulling blockers can not make it to the spot before the runner. Dscott has what 8 yards to run and they have 4. Maybe he thought it was jacobs and it would be three more seconds before he got to the hole.
</P>


Snee was definately there before Scott was so I don't know what you are talking about.</P>

Strife21
11-30-2011, 09:45 PM
Guy was to fast. He beat Snee his blocker to the spot and N.O. blew the play up.

TC crucial play in the game and he throws a rookie who's had about 5 runs all year.Go figure.

not to mention the playcall was just stupid

ELIistheFRANCHISE
11-30-2011, 09:48 PM
Guy was to fast. He beat Snee his blocker to the spot and N.O. blew the play up. TC crucial play in the game and he throws a rookie who's had about 5 runs all year.Go figure. not to mention the playcall was just stupid</P>


I believe last time we ran that same play was Bradshaw against philly last year and he....FUMBLED!</P>


</P>


Yes, I agree. A direct snap sweep. Not to mention the outstanding fake out by Eli when he jumped up like it was a wild snap.</P>

Overdrive92
11-30-2011, 10:12 PM
You would wonder if he has a problem holding on to the ball why draft him. Go figure.He had a fumbling problem early in his career at Maryland. He fell on draft day because he lacks vision. He doesnt recognize holes and he doesnt know how to follow blocks

perfect how about NYG they should draft him then.

Because of his upside. You can correct his fumbling issues. It happened with Tiki. And even Bradshaw is a lot better at holding onto the ball this year than he was last year.

JMFP2
11-30-2011, 11:19 PM
Maybe we should start Snee at RB if he's quicker to the next level than Scott.</P>


</P>


</P>


I joke.</P>

Rich4114
12-01-2011, 12:46 AM
I just want them to keep using Scott. I'd rather see what he can do on a screen pass than Ware. And would it kill us to run a passing play on 3rd and 1? What about boot leg and get a TE in the flat? We keep trying the same plays.

BlueSanta
12-01-2011, 12:57 AM
ok so scott might have a fumble problem, while everybody else has a "gain no yardage" problem. and btw, after scott's fumble, jacobs fumbled on his next carry if anybody remembers. lucky for him he went down right on top of it. my point is, does it matter right now? behind this oline i feel like scott is the only player who can create his own yards, followed by ware, then jacobs. jacobs is just too slow.



Seriously? Your gonna underplay his fumbling when he has put the ball on the ground 2 out of 5 carries? I'd say it is a HUGE problem and he has no place touching the ball until he has that problem licked.

BlueSanta
12-01-2011, 12:58 AM
You would wonder if he has a problem holding on to the ball why draft him. Go figure.He had a fumbling problem early in his career at Maryland. He fell on draft day because he lacks vision. He doesnt recognize holes and he doesnt know how to follow blocks

perfect how about NYG they should draft him then.

Because of his upside. You can correct his fumbling issues. It happened with Tiki. And even Bradshaw is a lot better at holding onto the ball this year than he was last year.

It is correctable, over time. We do not have that kind of time.

appodictic
12-02-2011, 11:43 PM
I have been calling for scott recently,but... This was the first time jacobs was effective. So it makes perfect sense we brought in scott.

In any case it is his fault for fumbling but really a shame our lame pulling blockers can not make it to the spot before the runner. Dscott has what 8 yards to run and they have 4. Maybe he thought it was jacobs and it would be three more seconds before he got to the hole.
</p>


Snee was definately there before Scott was so I don't know what you are talking about.</p>

Maybe we are talking about two different plays. I saw Scott get cut down one yard behind the line of scrimmage. As usual someone was not blocking up something right.

shotcalla39
12-03-2011, 12:09 AM
I'm not gonna kill him because he has had very few opportunites.. but he's good on ST and he will have to b better than ware .. ware sucks.. even gruden said so

FlyingTruck
12-03-2011, 01:38 AM
A lot of rookie running backs don't have that type of patience...

giantsfan420
12-03-2011, 01:50 AM
people are trying to unfairly compare scott to bradshaw and expecting too much from scott.

while i think he can be a stud and still contribute right now, bradshaw fell to the 7th round bc of off field issues.

scott fell to the 7th bc he is a project.

you got to remember that and give the kid some time, but he still can be used more and be effective, its just we wont know how good he truly can be/is for a while

BlueSanta
12-03-2011, 02:01 AM
scott fell to the 7th bc he is a project.

Actually, he fell because of a perceived lack of talent and because of a very inconsistent college career.

Most scouts I read felt he didnt have good vision , was not a good creator and was not patient with his blocks. Of those 3, only 1 is something really teachable(patience.)

I think the scouts would revise their original statements a bit if they could, but I do think people on these boards are looking at Scott with rose colored glasses a bit too. I think he can be a decent player, but Im not sure he will ever be a feature back. I would love to be wrong though.

giantsfan420
12-03-2011, 02:19 AM
scott fell to the 7th bc he is a project.

Actually, he fell because of a perceived lack of talent and because of a very inconsistent college career.

Most scouts I read felt he didnt have good vision , was not a good creator and was not patient with his blocks. Of those 3, only 1 is something really teachable(patience.)

I think the scouts would revise their original statements a bit if they could, but I do think people on these boards are looking at Scott with rose colored glasses a bit too. I think he can be a decent player, but Im not sure he will ever be a feature back. I would love to be wrong though.








you basically said what i said, only it took you 40 words and me like 5. scott is a project player for all those issues you mentioned.

but...he still could be effective, and should be used more. i suspect that will be the case as we go along the season.

BlueSanta
12-03-2011, 03:11 AM
scott fell to the 7th bc he is a project.

Actually, he fell because of a perceived lack of talent and because of a very inconsistent college career.

Most scouts I read felt he didnt have good vision , was not a good creator and was not patient with his blocks. Of those 3, only 1 is something really teachable(patience.)

I think the scouts would revise their original statements a bit if they could, but I do think people on these boards are looking at Scott with rose colored glasses a bit too. I think he can be a decent player, but Im not sure he will ever be a feature back. I would love to be wrong though.








you basically said what i said, only it took you 40 words and me like 5. scott is a project player for all those issues you mentioned.

but...he still could be effective, and should be used more. i suspect that will be the case as we go along the season.
Well, actually I didnt say the same thing. I agree with your conclusion. but, the term "project" carries with it a pretty specific definition. Scott did not fall to the late round "because he was considered a project" he fell because scouts just didnt think he was very good.

They may be wrong.... we shall see.

giantsfan420
12-03-2011, 03:43 AM
scott fell to the 7th bc he is a project.

Actually, he fell because of a perceived lack of talent and because of a very inconsistent college career.

Most scouts I read felt he didnt have good vision , was not a good creator and was not patient with his blocks. Of those 3, only 1 is something really teachable(patience.)

I think the scouts would revise their original statements a bit if they could, but I do think people on these boards are looking at Scott with rose colored glasses a bit too. I think he can be a decent player, but Im not sure he will ever be a feature back. I would love to be wrong though.








you basically said what i said, only it took you 40 words and me like 5. scott is a project player for all those issues you mentioned.

but...he still could be effective, and should be used more. i suspect that will be the case as we go along the season.
Well, actually I didnt say the same thing. I agree with your conclusion. but, the term "project" carries with it a pretty specific definition. Scott did not fall to the late round "because he was considered a project"* he fell because scouts just didnt think he was very good.

They may be wrong.... we shall see.





if the giants "didn't think he was good" they wouldn't have drafted him and brought him in as an UDFA. In my opinion, they drafted him knowing he has some issues to work on, but felt if he could fix some of those things you mentioned, he could end up being a very good RB.

Project, but its my subjective opinion really anyways. We're ultimately saying the same thing but disagree on the terminology so whatever, I can agree to disagree.