Big Blue Huddle

It is a good reference. Quality stuff, Rich. As you suggest, it almost certainly will be a topic of conversation here.

Your assessment of the three players in terms of alignment is reasonable although coverage could vary widely. In general, it is true that the X is viewed as the No.1 WR, which often reflects big play ability as much or more than number of receptions. It also is true that the X most often is covered by the opponent's best CB, and if he represents a real threat, he may see double or bracket coverage.

As for Manningham in that context, I view him more of up the field X-receiver than route-savvy Z.

But whether the X, or Z sees m2m or zone, press, squat, or off depends on the nature of opponent's defense, and game plan. Moreover, even when the CB presses, it doesn't automatically mean he's playing Man. If the X makes an inside move, and it's Zone, the CB may pass him off. We saw quite a bit of that from Seattle in the SB where their press Cover 3 may have been a counter to Denver running 2x2 and 1x3 sets which they often use to try to exploit m2m coverage with a pick play.

I too will be interested in who sets up where and with how many WRs, and how often. We then may get some idea as to whether there will be a meaningful increase in multiple (3 and 4 WR) sets which might be a first reflection of the difference between the Packer's pass offense and the Giants which otherwise is not all that different. For example, over the past couple of seasons, GB passed out of 3 and 4 WR sets almost 90% of the time compared to the Giants 73%.  While the Pack passed with 3 WRs about 65% to the Giants 60%; they used a lot more 4 WR sets, 25% to the Giants 10%. Perhaps, we will see a bit more in the way of twins and trips.

We know, of course, that TC has never been comfortable with 4 WR sets for reasons of pass protection ever since Eli's has been his QB. That must have been a factor in countering Gilbride's instincts toward the wide open and multiple. Will it be any less so now?

As for motion, neither the Coughlin/Gilbride Giants or the McCarthy/Clements Pack have employed it.

I'm sure that they will try to get the Backs more involved in the passing game, but even so the biggest benefit to the passing offense would result from a solid improvement in the running game.
 
Cheers!

Excellent analysis as always, Ceri. Even with the increasing role and emphasis given to Tight End, there have only been 3 TEs taken in Round 1 in the past five years as compared to 18 OTs, 18 WRs, and 16 DTs. I guess that suggests something about how high Ebron is being rated when considered value at 12.

And while I don't disgree with your assessments of A S-J, Niklas, Amaro, Fiedorowicz et al as later picks, it does makes one wonder whether there were similar reservations and/or doubts responsible for guys like Witten (69) and Findley (91) and Graham (95) lasting until Round 3?

In 2010, Gronkowski went at 43 which coincidently is where Our Heroes are scheduled to pick in Round 2, this year. His durability (back problem) was  big question mark, that I know. I also know that the TE he most often was compared to at the time was Kevin Boss. 

Cheers!

Absolutely spot on about Thomas, and probabably Hosley as well although my thumb is only sideways on him at this point.  And your Draft analysis and projection are nulli secundus as always, CD.

Cheers!

That is an excellent point; I'm glad you added it to the discussion, Rich.  Team's draft boards are layered; they are not just vertical but lateral as well. They will refelect player value, position value, and priority. And as I understand it, some teams color-code board entries in the the first two or three rounds to reflect what they view as higher value combinations.

Where the priority for the OG position is high enough, as many here feel it is for the Giants, it would be hard to argue that Warmack or Cooper wouldn't represent excellent value at 19. It might also be true that an available DE, OT, LB, or DB would be of no greater value; maybe lesser on a vertical scale. But, not only would priority be a factor, but also the ability to match the pick at 19 to the one at 49 in the effort to maximize value. Thus a combo with an OG at 49 with a DE or DB at 19 might tally highest in perceived value

Cheers!     

 

No one does it better than you, Ceri. Not only are the analyses enlightening but the form and content are a  the model pre-Draft reference.

In your OT review, I'll be interested in your assessment of Kevin Pugh as a potential OLG and emergency OLT, and Kyle Long as an OLT/OLG prospect.  As we all know, no team has valued and exploited versatility in their Olinemen more than Our Heroes. They have mined a lot of value from multipositional players like Dave Diehl and Kevin Boothe. But they were 5th and 6th Round picks, respectively. Pugh and Long wont last that long; certainly not past the 3rd Round.   

Much obliged.

Cheers!

  Thanks, Jian.

Cheers!

That's a good explanation of the added difficulty posed by the slot corner position. It always have been a fact; it simply has become much more significant in recent years.  Not long ago, the only time the offense put three WRs on the field was on an occasional 3rd and long, or more likely when they were trying to play catch up. Now they may do it on any down and distance, and at anytime in the game. And so the 3rd receiver, the one in the slot has become a weapon not just a sub.

Correspondingly, the third DB, the guy we have referred to in an almost dismissive manner as the Nickel Back, has become a specialist as well.  He's no longer just a Nickel Back or Nickel Corner; he's the Slot Back.

But we tend to think that the outside, the perimeter Corners have the toughest job because they may be covering the opponents best receiver. True, but when a corner is lined up on the outside, coverage actually can be easier. The opposing receiver is limited as to where he can go. He has the sideline constraining him. A good corner can use the sideline as a defender and pin receivers against it. And he almost always has a Safety behind him.

But unlike perimeter DBs who can often dictate the release of the receiver by their leverage - how far inside or outside of the receiver they line up- the slot DB needs to be quick enough to react to a

Nothing dumb about it, CAGiantFAN. The X breaks inside while W stays vertical which suggests who passes the crossing point first. And you would want it that way. The Z and W are running clear out routes. X clearly is the "read", so we might expect the W to lead, force the Safety back and so clear the deep middle for the X.

Cheers!

Great stuff, Rich.  That looks like Curt Warner and Mike Martz back in Greatest Show on Turf days. It might even be their terminology. It also could be the Eagles who run stuff like that a lot. It is not the Giants terminolgy although they run a bunch of Hi-Lo routes. Not often with a Back and TE, however. They run them with Cruz crossing underneath and a TE running a 12-15 yard square-in, and vice versa with the TE running a shallow cross; Cruz running a Hi dig-route.

In the PO game against the Niners, they began anticipating Cruz running a shallow cross, so he began pivoting and running back outside, a so called jerk-route because it makes the defender look like a jerk. That made them switch from Man to zone underneath. I don't know if it's read or not but it fits Gilbride's style.

And while on that subject, it's more likely that Gilbride would "run and shoot" a deep dig route out of Trips with Nicks isolated on the single side. Often the route is a quick ad hoc decison between Eli and Nicks to run either a streak or a bend with the underneath receiver sitting in open area of the zone. He runs the same kind of thing with an inside receiver. Not Run and Shoot but an echo.

A great QB and a really savvy OC have made stars of Nicks and Cruz; especially the latter, and has made rather ordinary TEs quite productive.

Cheers!

The switch to the T Formation was 1949, jimv.  As for the other date, Columbia ended Army's 32 game winning streak in October 1947. I was at that game with my mom who was a huge fan of Lou Little's Lions, and the reason Columbia later became my alma mater. What she didn't know at the time was that I was rooting for Army. In any case, it wasn't Pitchin' Paul Governali but Gene Rossides who threw the famous pass to Bill Swiaki who caught it with his finger tips to cut the score to 20-14. He made another 4th Quarter catch on the Army 3 yard line after which Lou Kusserow ran it in to make the final score 21-20. Rossides and Kusserow were known as the Gold Dust Twins.

Cheers!

Yes, indeed the fullback was a ball carrier- often the major one- back in the day. There were three backs behind the Quarterback who was "under the Center" in the T formation. They crossed the T which is where it is got its name. The guy in the middle might be a half to a full step deeper than the other two which is why he was called, Fullback; the others were called, Halfbacks. In those days, Mel Triplett was the fullback, Gifford and Webster, the halfbacks. Chuckin' Charlie Connery was the QB, the Giants first ever T formation Quarterback. But even before then Connerly's FBs included Gene "Choo Choo" Roberts and Eddie Price with Joe Scott, and Skippy Minisi, and Kyle Rote as the Halfbacks.


Before the Charlie Connerly era began, the Giants played the Steve Owen's "A formation" which was a variation the single wing. Paul Governali was the Wingback; Ken Strong was the Fullback, Joe Sulaitis the Blocking Back, and Howie Livingston was Tailback.

Cheers!

You got that right, king of the bronx.

Cheers!

A truly accurate assessment, Ceri.  You certainly nailed Courtney Upshaw but alas he wont be there when Giants pick, and I don't see the trade happening. In any case, I've decided to not expend any more mental energy adducing and deducing. It's close enough enough now; I can wait.

Cheers!

Really well done, and spot on as usual.

Many thanks.

Cheers!

Ceri, I share your views on RBs so closely, I need not comment except in regard to "trading out" of 32. Two things would be required for it to even be a consideration: 1. Someone would have to make them a really good offer. 2. It would not cost them a shot at a player they really wanted.     

Cheers!