Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
x close
Quote from: bradentonian on January 10, 2008, 03:43:17 PMSo we should have blitzed and given up 38 points instead of 24?So you have a crystal ball, then?
So we should have blitzed and given up 38 points instead of 24?
How do you know we would give up 38? Not blitzing wasn't working. I would have had faith in the secondary to cover up their receivers and see if we can get pressure by blitzing in various ways. Eli is not his brother and won't be reading the defense and calling the correct audibles at the line.
There is no excuse...  the defensive game plan was solid.  Monte didn't want to blitz because he didn't want to give up the big play, especially with the threat of Burress.  Stopping the run and daring Eli to play mistake-free football was our best opportunity to win.
Quote from: bradentonian on January 10, 2008, 03:37:32 PMWhy are you holding the defensive coaching staff to a higher standard than the offensive coaching staff?I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's simple. The defense was supposed to be the strength of this team, and it is certainly more talented than the offense. Everyone knew going into this game that the Giants defensive line was going to give our OL fits, that Garcia may be on his back all afternoon, that we were starting an inexperienced cast-off at LOT against a high-pressure DL. Pundits talked about how Eli was going to struggle against our defense, that the league's most-intercepted QB might get picked off three times against the Bucs, that Manning was sure to struggle when facing the Monte Kiffin-led unit.Yet, despite the fact that Manning sliced through the defense like a hot knife through butter, Monte was unable to provide an answer. Did the offense fail us? Sure did, as did the ST (those two turnovers were probably the difference in the game). But neither of those two units were deemed among the best in the league, while the Bucs defense is (at least statistically).
Why are you holding the defensive coaching staff to a higher standard than the offensive coaching staff?
Quote from: DanTurksGhost on January 10, 2008, 03:45:53 PMQuote from: bradentonian on January 10, 2008, 03:37:32 PMWhy are you holding the defensive coaching staff to a higher standard than the offensive coaching staff?I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's simple. The defense was supposed to be the strength of this team, and it is certainly more talented than the offense. Everyone knew going into this game that the Giants defensive line was going to give our OL fits, that Garcia may be on his back all afternoon, that we were starting an inexperienced cast-off at LOT against a high-pressure DL. Pundits talked about how Eli was going to struggle against our defense, that the league's most-intercepted QB might get picked off three times against the Bucs, that Manning was sure to struggle when facing the Monte Kiffin-led unit.Yet, despite the fact that Manning sliced through the defense like a hot knife through butter, Monte was unable to provide an answer. Did the offense fail us? Sure did, as did the ST (those two turnovers were probably the difference in the game). But neither of those two units were deemed among the best in the league, while the Bucs defense is (at least statistically).I'll answer that more directly:What side of the ball have the brunt of our injuries occurred on this year?
Quote from: sammy8887 on January 10, 2008, 03:52:22 PMI'll answer that more directly:What side of the ball have the brunt of our injuries occurred on this year?So if we had no injuries our offense would have been top-5 like our defense was?
I'll answer that more directly:What side of the ball have the brunt of our injuries occurred on this year?
Eli (and the backup center) picked up most of the few blitzes we showed and beat them for first downs.
Quote from: bradentonian on January 10, 2008, 03:53:16 PMQuote from: sammy8887 on January 10, 2008, 03:52:22 PMI'll answer that more directly:What side of the ball have the brunt of our injuries occurred on this year?So if we had no injuries our offense would have been top-5 like our defense was?Are we talking about the offense or defense?Did they play like a top 5 defense Sunday or not?If not, can they not be called out? The offense will get called out without a doubt by the anti-Gruden folks...
Quote from: bradentonian on January 10, 2008, 03:51:23 PMEli (and the backup center) picked up most of the few blitzes we showed and beat them for first downs.Because we showed them nothing they didn't expect.
Quote from: Escobar on January 10, 2008, 03:45:08 PMQuote from: bradentonian on January 10, 2008, 03:34:33 PMQuote from: DanTurksGhost on January 10, 2008, 03:32:02 PMA dominant three technique makes the whole defense a lot better. But there was still no excuse for not being creative on defense against the Giants -- particularly when you know that you don't have a dominant three technique.There is no excuse...  the defensive game plan was solid.  Monte didn't want to blitz because he didn't want to give up the big play, especially with the threat of Burress.  Stopping the run and daring Eli to play mistake-free football was our best opportunity to win.So in other words, he wanted to play it safe. Hmm, well that will get you beat almost everytime. Their only deep threat was an injured Burress, blitzing Eli and covering Plaxico in man coverage is a risk I wish we would have taken as opposed to letting the league leader in Int's pick us apart as effortlessly as his brother did. Really?  It put our defense in the top 5 and helped us win the division and get to the playoffs.
Quote from: bradentonian on January 10, 2008, 03:34:33 PMQuote from: DanTurksGhost on January 10, 2008, 03:32:02 PMA dominant three technique makes the whole defense a lot better. But there was still no excuse for not being creative on defense against the Giants -- particularly when you know that you don't have a dominant three technique.There is no excuse...  the defensive game plan was solid.  Monte didn't want to blitz because he didn't want to give up the big play, especially with the threat of Burress.  Stopping the run and daring Eli to play mistake-free football was our best opportunity to win.So in other words, he wanted to play it safe. Hmm, well that will get you beat almost everytime. Their only deep threat was an injured Burress, blitzing Eli and covering Plaxico in man coverage is a risk I wish we would have taken as opposed to letting the league leader in Int's pick us apart as effortlessly as his brother did.
Quote from: DanTurksGhost on January 10, 2008, 03:32:02 PMA dominant three technique makes the whole defense a lot better. But there was still no excuse for not being creative on defense against the Giants -- particularly when you know that you don't have a dominant three technique.There is no excuse...  the defensive game plan was solid.  Monte didn't want to blitz because he didn't want to give up the big play, especially with the threat of Burress.  Stopping the run and daring Eli to play mistake-free football was our best opportunity to win.
A dominant three technique makes the whole defense a lot better. But there was still no excuse for not being creative on defense against the Giants -- particularly when you know that you don't have a dominant three technique.
Quote from: DanTurksGhost on January 10, 2008, 03:55:46 PMQuote from: bradentonian on January 10, 2008, 03:51:23 PMEli (and the backup center) picked up most of the few blitzes we showed and beat them for first downs.Because we showed them nothing they didn't expect.I was disappointed that Monte didn't have something different for Eli, he's one of the best but he's got to evolve here. Gruden didn't adjust either, they both deserve huge blame for that putrid display. Bidwell aslo hust the Bucs, twice, and Sprulocks fumble was horrible.
Quote from: keeponbucn on January 10, 2008, 03:58:42 PMQuote from: DanTurksGhost on January 10, 2008, 03:55:46 PMQuote from: bradentonian on January 10, 2008, 03:51:23 PMEli (and the backup center) picked up most of the few blitzes we showed and beat them for first downs.Because we showed them nothing they didn't expect.I was disappointed that Monte didn't have something different for Eli, he's one of the best but he's got to evolve here. Gruden didn't adjust either, they both deserve huge blame for that putrid display. Bidwell aslo hust the Bucs, twice, and Sprulocks fumble was horrible. Individual performances are not being highlighted enough here...even simple things like unusually poor kicks that led to worse field position...Spurlock fumbles...the D holds to make it 17-7 and then the Bucs start driving until Garcia throws the INT in the end zone...if people want to blame all that on Gruden, that's their perrogative, I suppose...Garcia and Galloway are the "G's" that get blame before Gruden, IMO...
The fact that all the facets of the team failed (offense, defense, special teams) should fall squarely on the shoulders of the HC.