Will BenJarvus Green-Ellis Make the 53?

[Patspsycho]

I just noticed on the replay that BJGE outran a cornerback on his last TD. A RB outrunning a CB?

 

[Deus Irae]

The Giants had a great pass rush and their game plan was to live and die with the pass rush. We played right into it.

There's such a thing as taking what the defense gives you and that sometimes means not abandoning (the run in this case) because you get stuffed a few times.

I don't think that is hard to understand. If we did the bolded part, returning to our strength would have been much more productive given we'd established we could run and pass short.

If you still can't understand what I'm saying, I have all weekend.

You've been wrong the whole time, as the data regarding precisely what you were asserting proved. Why do you insist on continuing?

 

[RayClay]

By the way, that's probably why the same Coaches consistently win big games. It's not because every player happens to win every individual battle during the playoffs, It's much more likely that the defense stops the other team from using their strength, while the offense executes on all phases, so the defense can't dominate in any one area, and has to respect every phase of the offense, setting up the success of the offense you choose by games end.

 

[Deus Irae]

By the way, that's probably why the same Coaches consistently win big games. It's not because every player happens to win every individual battle during the playoffs, It's much more likely that the defense stops the other team from using their strength, while the offense executes on all phases, so the defense can't dominate in any one area, and has to respect every phase of the offense, setting up the success of the offense you choose by games end.

What NFL coaches have gone through their entire career never losing a big game?

 

[RayClay]

You've been wrong the whole time, as the data regarding precisely what you were asserting proved. Why do you insist on continuing?

Wrong about what? We ran the ball much less than most teams not named the Rams.

Did you replay the game on Madden with the Patriots running the ball 25 times or so to offset the rush?

Please, tell me how I was wrong about something that never happened? This place is just ridiculous sometimes.

 

[RayClay]

What NFL coaches have gone through their entire career never losing a big game?

You're supposed to quote where i said that.

Are you trying to be puerile?

 

[Mike the Brit]

24 hours until this thread is put to sleep.

You're not kidding. 305 posts (and counting) and over 5000 views -- I spawned a monster.

And it's surprised me. From the discussion about rosters, I'd have guessed that the voting would have been quite even -- that whichever side had it, there wouldn't be more than a 60/40 majority. Even before last night, it was running nearly 3:1 and now it's over 4. Well, as you say, we'll know soon enough.

(I should have expected this to be another Maroney thread, though -- gets people worked up when he plays, gets them worked up when he doesn't. Perfect.)

 

[BradyFTW!]

You're not kidding. 305 posts (and counting) and over 5000 views -- I spawned a monster.

And it's surprised me. From the discussion about rosters, I'd have guessed that the voting would have been quite even -- that whichever side had it, there wouldn't be more than a 60/40 majority. Even before last night, it was running nearly 3:1 and now it's over 4. Well, as you say, we'll know soon enough.

(I should have expected this to be another Maroney thread, though -- gets people worked up when he plays, gets them worked up when he doesn't. Perfect.)

Man, yeah, there was a pretty big swing after last night's game. Makes sense, the crowd that insists that BJGE is more than a JAG are the same type of people who would make roster decisions based on the fourth preseason game, due to one good half of play against a bunch of camp fodder

 

[Deus Irae]

You're supposed to quote where i said that.

Are you trying to be puerile?

that's probably why the same Coaches consistently win big games

If it was all about the coaches, BB would be undefeated.

 

[RayClay]

If it was all about the coaches, BB would be undefeated.

But I didn't say it was all about coaches. Peewee Herman arguments are only fun for a while.

That's why you didn't quote me twice in a row. Because I didn't say what you wrote.

that's probably why the same Coaches consistently win big games

Yes, BB has consistently won big games. Not necessarily with the most expensive offensive talent either, excluding short yardage back Dillon.

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly, JAG isn't an insult. JAGs are NFL-caliber players. In most cases, it's the type of guy that, if you have injuries, you plug him in and he fills in capably enough that you can hold things together.

Look at last night's game- there were a whole lot of stars that won't be on NFL rosters this time tomorrow. I watched Gary Russell come in for Oakland and steamroll over Seattle's D, en route to 12/59 (4.9 YPC), 2 TDs, and some slick runs.

Danny Woodhead had 18 carries for 158 yards and 2 TD, Tristan Davis got 92 yards and a TD on 3 carries, Aaron Brown got 56 yards on 11 carries, Aveion Cason got 40 yards on 6 carries, Patrick Cobbs got 54 yards and a TD on 9 carries, Dantrell Savage got 73 yards on 4 carries, Mike Goodson got 79 yards on 15 carries, Isaac Redman got 79 yards on 12 carries, DeDe Dorsey 68 yards on 13 carries, Brian Leonard got 64 yards and a TD on 9 carries, James Johnson got 55 yards on 11 carries, Bernard Scott got 43 yards on 5 carries, Allen Patrick got 50 yards on 8 carries. All of these guys had really good games, and they probably all have fans waking up this morning saying 'how can we cut this guy?' But most of them will get cut tomorrow.

Every year, a bunch of RBs do well in the fourth game of the preseason, and most of them get cut anyways. Why? Because no matter how well he does playing against third and fourth stringers out there, there's still a reason why he's even getting a lot of touches in the fourth game in the first place. The RBs whose roster spots are secure, and who are expected to contribute to the team significantly don't play at all.

Maybe BJGE played his way into a roster spot. I like the guy, and wouldn't mind it. Honestly, if Morris' injury is looking like it might be a nagging one, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if he ends up being the odd RB out, especially if BB decides that Maroney and Taylor are good to go as 1/2 and he wants the other RB to contribute more in special teams and pass-blocking. To think that last night makes BJGE a slam-dunk, though, just doesn't make sense. If anything, I'm a little worried that, prior to that last drive, we were looking at a sub-3.5 YPC. All of those guys that I listed above were at 5.0 YPC or up, so even after he busted the long one, BJGE is still well them. The only way in which he stands out from that crowd is that he got a full workload, and I'm honestly not sure that that's a good sign.

I guess I should stop here and summarize my opinion.
I would be fine if BJGE was our #4 RB. If, as you suggest, Morris is injured I would look no further for his replacement than BJGE. I think if he were the backup (one step up because #3 is the 3rd down back, Faulk) I'd probably be Ok with that, and wouldnt think it a disaster.
The problem is we hae Faulk in one of those spots and 3 other better players. If one of those 3 (ie Morris) were injured, putting BJGE in his place would be fine. He has proven capable of that. But, to keep him on the roster as an inactive 5th RB, needing 2 RBs injured for him to ever see the field is a bad use of a roster spot, because the difference between him, and whoever else we would pick up for the last active roster spot in the event of those injuries is tiny.

 

[Deus Irae]

But I didn't say it was all coaches. Peewee Herman arguments are only fun for a while.

That's why you didn't quote me twice in a row. Because I didn't say what you wrote.

I didn't quote you because I was taking your terrible argument to its logical conclusion and pointing out its failing.

 

[Ring 6]

The Giants had a great pass rush and their game plan was to live and die with the pass rush. We played right into it.

There's such a thing as taking what the defense gives you and that sometimes means not abandoning (the run in this case) because you get stuffed a few times.

I don't think that is hard to understand. If we did the bolded part, returning to our strength would have been much more productive given we'd established we could run and pass short.

If you still can't understand what I'm saying, I have all weekend.

I think your assumption is wrong.
The Giants didnt sell out to live and die by the pass rush, they rushed 4.
They didnt have a good pass rush because they overplayed the rush, they had one because our guy blocking their rusher failed.
If the OL misses the block it doesnt matter what the call was.
What happened was our OL didnt block them, not they sold out to rush the QB.

 

[Ring 6]

By the way, that's probably why the same Coaches consistently win big games. It's not because every player happens to win every individual battle during the playoffs, It's much more likely that the defense stops the other team from using their strength, while the offense executes on all phases, so the defense can't dominate in any one area, and has to respect every phase of the offense, setting up the success of the offense you choose by games end.

This is getting ridiculous. No one is saying you have to win every single individual battle. It is the individual battles that determine the success of the play. You have to block, tackle, cover, etc to make the play work.
If the other teams DL can't be blocked by your OL it doesnt really matter what you do.
You seem to think that football is not a game where 2 people line up across from each and have a physical confrontation and one wins and one loses.
Xs and Os are irrelevant if O cant block X

 

[RayClay]

I think your assumption is wrong.
The Giants didnt sell out to live and die by the pass rush, they rushed 4.
They didnt have a good pass rush because they overplayed the rush, they had one because our guy blocking their rusher failed.
If the OL misses the block it doesnt matter what the call was.
What happened was our OL didnt block them, not they sold out to rush the QB.

I didn't say they blitzed, they rarely needed to. They have the best pass rush in the league. You think we should have had the whole game depend on our oline against the best pass rush in football. That's not how I would have played it.

We should have run right at them and had our oline beat them up, in my opinion.

They were exhausted on the sideline, even though they were rotating guys in to rush every play.

Sometimes doing nothing but pitting your blockers against the other teams strength is enough to win.

The British won wars all over the world lining up in red suits in straight lines and firing in unison. I suppose we could have stood opposite them in straight lines and won too.

We didn't.

 

[Ring 6]

Wrong about what? We ran the ball much less than most teams not named the Rams.

Did you replay the game on Madden with the Patriots running the ball 25 times or so to offset the rush?

Please, tell me how I was wrong about something that never happened? This place is just ridiculous sometimes.

Running does not offset the rush of one man being unable to block another.
Nothing in that game was about the Giants gameplanning to get pressure, or knowing what we were going to do. It was about a defensive player beating the block of an offensive player who was in position to block him.
If you really rewatch the game you will see CONSISTENTLY that DL are beating the blocks of OL (run/pass ratio or setting up play calls has absolutely nothing to do with that) and hitting Brady as he is throwing the ball, sending the pass off target. If our 5 OL EXECUTED THEIR BLOCKS in that game with the level of success they had throughout the season, we would have scopred over 30 points, no question.
You could have called 20 runs in a row, but if you passed on the 21st and Logan Mankins couldn't stop Justin Tuck from beating his block, the result would have been exactly the same.
What makes you think that an OL losing the physical battle with a DL in protecting the QB would fare better run blocking against them? Its the same men against the same men. Especially when their strength is pass blocking.

 

[Deus Irae]

I didn't say they blitzed, they rarely needed to. They have the best pass rush in the league. You think we should have had the whole game depend on our oline against the best pass rush in football. That's not how I would have played it.

We should have run right at them and had our oline beat them up, in my opinion.

They were exhausted on the sideline, even though they were rotating guys in to rush every play.

Sometimes doing nothing but pitting your blockers against the other teams strength is enough to win.

The British won wars all over the world lining up in red suits in straight lines and firing in unison. I suppose we could have stood opposite them in straight lines and won too.

We didn't.

Ok, perhaps one day you'll watch that game. Then, when you know what actually happened, we'll all be able to have this discussion again.

 

[RayClay]

If the other teams DL can't be blocked by your OL it doesnt really matter what you do.

Really. Do you mean on a five step drop, a screen pass, a sweep, a run up the middle?

I guess some teams think that way, but the best teams "find a way to win".

Where do they come up with cliches like that anyway?

I doubt BB thought he could just line up and win the physical matchups with the Rams, minus a pretty clever game plan.

 

[Ring 6]

I didn't say they blitzed, they rarely needed to. They have the best pass rush in the league. You think we should have had the whole game depend on our oline against the best pass rush in football. That's not how I would have played it.

We should have run right at them and had our oline beat them up, in my opinion.

They were exhausted on the sideline, even though they were rotating guys in to rush every play.

Sometimes doing nothing but pitting your blockers against the other teams strength is enough to win.

The British won wars all over the world lining up in red suits in straight lines and firing in unison. I suppose we could have stood opposite them in straight lines and won too.

We didn't.

The game did come down to our OL blocking their DL. Every game does.
It is a ridiculous argument to say that our OL that got manhandled could have 'run right at them and beat them up"
It is foolish when we blocked poorly in the running game and poorly in the passing game to conclude that since we passed more the answer is we should have run more, because they were blowing up our OL in the running game too.
We lost the game for 2 reasons.
1) Our OL, for whatever reason, and very much out of character, was DOMINATED, punked, owned, blown up, by their DL.
2) Our defense couldn't stop either of 2 80+ yard 4th quarter drives, led by a QB who was throwing as many passes to our guys as to his own.

 

[RayClay]

Running does not offset the rush of one man being unable to block another.
Nothing in that game was about the Giants gameplanning to get pressure, or knowing what we were going to do. It was about a defensive player beating the block of an offensive player who was in position to block him.
If you really rewatch the game you will see CONSISTENTLY that DL are beating the blocks of OL (run/pass ratio or setting up play calls has absolutely nothing to do with that) and hitting Brady as he is throwing the ball, sending the pass off target. If our 5 OL EXECUTED THEIR BLOCKS in that game with the level of success they had throughout the season, we would have scopred over 30 points, no question.
You could have called 20 runs in a row, but if you passed on the 21st and Logan Mankins couldn't stop Justin Tuck from beating his block, the result would have been exactly the same.
What makes you think that an OL losing the physical battle with a DL in protecting the QB would fare better run blocking against them? Its the same men against the same men. Especially when their strength is pass blocking.

Wow, Captain obvious! How many times do I have to say that the Giants had the best 4 man rush in the league. Crossing our fingers hoping our Oline, not the best pass rushing line by a longshot, would stop them consistently almost guaranteed we'd see more pressure than we'd like.

Am I missing something? Is this not why coaches develop gameplans? To try to neutralize the other teams strength, somewhat. Maybe to surprise them, to take advantage of anything that makes their defense adjust?

I mean if you want to win. I'm assuming coaches act in a way they assume they can win if a good game plan is well executed.