Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eli/Webb/Geno question.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eli/Webb/Geno question.

    I am just curious...Ben's original plan was to play Eli for the first half and then put in Geno/Webb for the second half of games to see what they could do. I heard a lot about how this made sense.

    How does that plan mesh with what we saw in the Filthadephia game?
    Would it have still made sense?
    "I hire my brains"...Horace Trumbauer

  • #2
    You will never ever see them answer this but I have seen them say the only true way we could see if eli was helping or hur5ing was to have Webb or Geno play the same d that Eli played.

    IF we did use Macs plan, how might Webb and Geno have fared in the 2nd half playing the same d with same personnel surrounding him...

    now I know the reply will be "but yeah u choose the game he did vest in how about all the games he did poorly..." and I would reply those are precisely the games that Eli DID help us it's just there was no helping Macs scheme and personnel beyond a certain point.

    yesterday happened bc of the scheme Philly ran and they are morons for running it again after the first go round especially how the rest of the league has handled our o but they went a ton of single high a ton of augment zone coverage etc nothing like the 2 deep rush 3 and drop 8 stuff we saw most the Year bc as we saw teams didn t need to deviate.

    but even those 17 10 or 24 17 games we kept having I am saying that was the max 90% of the time with what our scheme could enable vs the schemes we kept encountering. Those very games maybe every now and then Geno or Webb gives us 3 or 7 more po9nts but the game is was more lopsided we lose by way more.

    o akland is o akland look at their d and how KC fared they broke their 70 game losing streak playing them but Geno couldn't even muster more than 100 yards or a score but did have 2 tienovwers 1 in the rz after the d gave us an easy chance to score going into 5 min left down by 10 which has always equated garbage time to elis critics.

    bc remember how often gumby would subtract scor9ng possessions if the d had a turnover and gave us the ball lol any way I digress.

    my point is yesterday showed that Eli does in fact bring a lot just no man has enough to have been able to overcome Macs schematic shortcomings and personnel flaw as created by reese
    Last edited by giantsfan420; 12-18-2017, 12:22 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      It makes no more sense now than it ever did. For a HC to make up an arbitrary time to replace a player that is not based on what is going on in the game or anything football related is dumb.

      Comment


      • #4
        It wasnít an offer that was ever intended on being accepted and executed as stated.

        It was a plan to make Geno Smith the starter and pay Eli ďlip serviceĒ / get him to give up the starting job. The plan worked just people saw through it to what was underneath and rightly called it out. It was nothing more than a dirty move.

        McAdoo knew it made no sense. Merely a ploy to get his guy starting games. Too scared to bench Eli outright

        Webb was never really in the picture at all as we can all clearly see now.

        Comment


        • #5
          It made absolutely no sense. A QB needs to start and finish a game, unless for some reason he is injured. You canít just put a player in and sub another one later at the most important position on the team.

          It was an idiotic decision that for some reason got approved by our owner.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Delicreep View Post
            I am just curious...Ben's original plan was to play Eli for the first half and then put in Geno/Webb for the second half of games to see what they could do. I heard a lot about how this made sense.

            How does that plan mesh with what we saw in the Filthadephia game?
            Would it have still made sense?

            It made sense in the context of what we saw from Eli and our offense. But not based on yesterday's performance.

            The Giants clearly need to figure out why Eli and our offense looked so much better in this game.



            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by primetime View Post
              It made absolutely no sense. A QB needs to start and finish a game, unless for some reason he is injured. You canít just put a player in and sub another one later at the most important position on the team.

              It was an idiotic decision that for some reason got approved by our owner.
              Based on hearing Mara talk I donít think he did approve that plan as stated. He took the blame publically but I think how he really felt is evidenced in the fact he fired Ben McAdoo after the game. He got caught with his pants down.

              not absolving him, but he isnít absolving himself either. He could have blasted McAdoo publically or fired him mid week before the Raiders game.

              we will never know and Mara will not slag McAdoo in public but it seems pretty clear to me what went on...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by giantsfan420 View Post
                You will never ever see them answer this but I have seen them say the only true way we could see if eli was helping or hur5ing was to have Webb or Geno play the same d that Eli played.

                IF we did use Macs plan, how might Webb and Geno have fared in the 2nd half playing the same d with same personnel surrounding him...

                now I know the reply will be "but yeah u choose the game he did vest in how about all the games he did poorly..." and I would reply those are precisely the games that Eli DID help us it's just there was no helping Macs scheme and personnel beyond a certain point.

                yesterday happened bc of the scheme Philly ran and they are morons for running it again after the first go round especially how the rest of the league has handled our o but they went a ton of single high a ton of augment zone coverage etc nothing like the 2 deep rush 3 and drop 8 stuff we saw most the Year bc as we saw teams didn t need to deviate.

                but even those 17 10 or 24 17 games we kept having I am saying that was the max 90% of the time with what our scheme could enable vs the schemes we kept encountering. Those very games maybe every now and then Geno or Webb gives us 3 or 7 more po9nts but the game is was more lopsided we lose by way more.

                o akland is o akland look at their d and how KC fared they broke their 70 game losing streak playing them but Geno couldn't even muster more than 100 yards or a score but did have 2 tienovwers 1 in the rz after the d gave us an easy chance to score going into 5 min left down by 10 which has always equated garbage time to elis critics.

                bc remember how often gumby would subtract scor9ng possessions if the d had a turnover and gave us the ball lol any way I digress.

                my point is yesterday showed that Eli does in fact bring a lot just no man has enough to have been able to overcome Macs schematic shortcomings and personnel flaw as created by reese
                Exactly what I said this morning.

                Originally posted by DarkSaint View Post
                To be fair the last time we saw one deep safety with Mac was against the Ravens and that was the last time Eli threw for over 400 yards. The eagles were playing one deep that's why we took those shots near the sidelines and it opened up the field.

                ​​​​​​Don't know why the eagles ran the one deep? Its possible they needed the extra guy to help with the slants. They have been getting killed by slants all year and their line backers might not be good in coverage. Still can't believe they went that route on defense because they could have easily put pressure with Graham, Jernigan, cox and dropped everyone into coverage.

                Or maybe our run game has improved enough that they felt that they needed to help against the run.
                Last edited by DarkSaint; 12-18-2017, 12:44 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Roosevelt View Post


                  It made sense in the context of what we saw from Eli and our offense. But not based on yesterday's performance.

                  The Giants clearly need to figure out why Eli and our offense looked so much better in this game.


                  I will argue that benching Eli made sense, but the arbitrary splitting of time never made any sense.
                  It took 1 game to show why.
                  "I hire my brains"...Horace Trumbauer

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by primetime View Post
                    It made absolutely no sense. A QB needs to start and finish a game, unless for some reason he is injured. You canít just put a player in and sub another one later at the most important position on the team.

                    It was an idiotic decision that for some reason got approved by our owner.
                    ...which is why I don't understand this constant drumbeat from some posters that we must "give the kid some snaps". It just doesn't make any sense.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bronxpinstripes View Post

                      ...which is why I don't understand this constant drumbeat from some posters that we must "give the kid some snaps". It just doesn't make any sense.
                      What if we were down by 28 pts with 4 minutes to go?
                      "I hire my brains"...Horace Trumbauer

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Delicreep View Post

                        What if we were down by 28 pts with 4 minutes to go?
                        Keep the starter in, getting an evaluation on a player in ďgarbage timeĒ will not give us much answers.

                        Webb isnít playing this year, the chance they had for him to play was the game against the Raiders. But McAdoo decided Geno was the best option for them to win the game. Try saying that with a straight face.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bronxpinstripes View Post

                          ...which is why I don't understand this constant drumbeat from some posters that we must "give the kid some snaps". It just doesn't make any sense.
                          You can't look for "sense" on this board. Just a lot of frustrated Monday morning QB's. I'm one also. We have the luxury of sitting on our keyboards, and banging out whatever fancy fills our minds. I'd venture to say most have never played a down of competitive football.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Delicreep View Post

                            What if we were down by 28 pts with 4 minutes to go?
                            What is the defensive strategy when you're up by 28 with 4 minutes to go? To get into that locker room as quickly as possible (with the win, of course).

                            So, what kind of defense do you play? The good ol' Prevent.

                            What is the Prevent designed to do? Essentially, to give up 5-10 yard pass plays while protecting the sidelines. Receivers getting out of bounds stop the clock. So do incomplete passes.

                            So, you put Davis Webb in down by 28 with 4 minutes to go. I can pretty much guarantee you his stat line for the game. 7 of 8 (a receiver will inevitably drop a pass) for 75 yards and a touchdown. Time of possession...2 minutes, 30 seconds, leaving a minute and-a-half for the opponent to take a knee. Game over.

                            So, what did you learn? You learned that Davis Webb can throw balls to open receivers standing 5-10 yards away. He can then walk swiftly to the line and do it again. He can continue this exercise until he runs out of real estate.

                            Couldn't you learn the same thing on a Wednesday morning in the bubble in East Rutherford?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Delicreep View Post

                              I will argue that benching Eli made sense, but the arbitrary splitting of time never made any sense.
                              It took 1 game to show why.
                              You're right and I wasn't trying to suggesting McAdoo's plan made sense at all.

                              I was simply suggesting it made sense to want to see Webb play based on the look of our offense with Eli for almost 2 years.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X