The offensive O-line, Barclay the answer?

[sharpe1027]

IMO, the problem was as much play calling and game planning as anything. The Giants used the bye week to really put together a cohesive coverage game plan. They were disrupting timing and to make it difficult to find the gaps on the coverage. Rodgers often unable to find an open WR even when he had time. On the early interception, it seemed like they knew the play before the snap. Why else would a DB leave his man wide open?

I expect opponents will be watching a lot of film on this game. I hope MM has an answer.

[Iron Mike]

On the early interception, it seemed like they knew the play before the snap. Why else would a DB leave his man wide open?

And why couldn't Rodgers find the guy that was left wide open???

[sharpe1027]

And why couldn't Rodgers find the guy that was left wide open???

I am not a mind reader, but Rodgers was probably making a read based upon the assumption that the other DB would not break off his coverage and leave his man wide open. It was a quick hitter/timing route and there was no time for Rodgers to survey the entire field before making the pass. This is especially true because I believe he was selling the play fake, which occupies his attention.

I think the Giants knew this and took a calculated gamble.

[mraynrand]

And why couldn't Rodgers find the guy that was left wide open???

That's all on Rodgers. He had tunnel vision for Cobb. Webster vacated his coverage and had safety help over the top, but there was a huge gap to throw into. Rodger's vision on that one sucked. He also blew several pre-snap reads. Ok, give credit to the Giants for disguising them, but Rodgers was pedestrian in the two areas where he's normally excellent: presnap reads and vision.

About the Cobb deal: It was clear that the Giants made stopping him their top concern; the Packers reacted by continuing to try and go to him. Finley may be a pariah (Collinsworth's comment about Finley not sucking up to Rodgers was very interesting) but I don't care if he drops a couple of passes - he should be open - it should be possible to get him the ball.

It remains a mystery to me why the Packers seemingly have very little in their playbook to counter an aggressive outside pass rush. The one play to Kuhn was excellent, but it's hard to run something like that with an empty backfield.

Oh well, time to face fact: The whole night was a clustersuck.

[Bossman641]

IMO, the problem was as much play calling and game planning as anything. The Giants used the bye week to really put together a cohesive coverage game plan. They were disrupting timing and to make it difficult to find the gaps on the coverage. Rodgers often unable to find an open WR even when he had time. On the early interception, it seemed like they knew the play before the snap. Why else would a DB leave his man wide open?

I expect opponents will be watching a lot of film on this game. I hope MM has an answer.

Giants were playing a cover 2 on the INT. For whatever reason, Webster just abandoned Jones and came onto Cobb instead. Don't know if Webster recognized something in film study or just took a gamble, but it paid off for him.

[pbmax]

what happen to all the depth i thought we had? we've been drafting guys for years that can play multiple positions on the line. now we lose one fucking starter and we look like a god damn joke.

no one last night looked like they were comfortable playing where they were playing

heres a question for MM. you gave lang extra help on the right side all night, leaving newhouse 1 on 1 with osi. HUGE MISTAKE. why is it so difficult for you to say during the game, "ok, we need help on the left side too. lets get rid of one of the 5 wr's that a-rod doesn't have time to throw to, and throw a TE like crabtree in there to do nothing but help newhouse block".

why couldn't we make that adjustment? it was clear about 10 minutes into the game that we needed a lot more help up front

One reason is that JPP played a lot of LDE yesterday which is not his normal home base.

[pbmax]

Giants were playing a cover 2 on the INT. For whatever reason, Webster just abandoned Jones and came onto Cobb instead. Don't know if Webster recognized something in film study or just took a gamble, but it paid off for him.

That play is designed, like play action, to such up attention from some defender in a short pass zone. Webster probably recognized it from film and knew his guy inside would want to watch the zone option/read first.

[sharpe1027]

Giants were playing a cover 2 on the INT. For whatever reason, Webster just abandoned Jones and came onto Cobb instead. Don't know if Webster recognized something in film study or just took a gamble, but it paid off for him.

I would bet that it was something he was coached to do based upon the Packer's tendencies. Completely abandoning your man is not something you see every day.

[sharpe1027]

Might they be better off biting the bullet and trying Barclay at RT while returning Lang to LG? The loss of Bulaga would then weaken only one position, not two, even if the one position is significantly weaker.

I liked the theory behind this, but then I remembered just how bad it can be having an incompetent RT. Anyone remember Allen Barbre's infamous stint at RT? He is proof that sometimes it is better to have two crappy players than a single really really really really really crappy player. I'm not saying Barclay is necessarily that bad, but he may be bad enough to justify sticking with their current lineup.

[pbmax]

IMO, the problem was as much play calling and game planning as anything. The Giants used the bye week to really put together a cohesive coverage game plan. They were disrupting timing and to make it difficult to find the gaps on the coverage. Rodgers often unable to find an open WR even when he had time. On the early interception, it seemed like they knew the play before the snap. Why else would a DB leave his man wide open?

I expect opponents will be watching a lot of film on this game. I hope MM has an answer.

And why couldn't Rodgers find the guy that was left wide open???

This. Or these.

I thought several times the Giants clearly had an answer for a Packers maneuver. Several times they blitzed after motion and were able to send a guy right into an open gap despite the slide. Double teaming JPP over Lang was leaving a space wide open for a blitzer in the Guard Tackle gap. They had several free runs at Rodgers. My suspicion is that the Packers got next to nothing out of empty backfield sets. I get the sense that opponents don't fear a single back run play nor Cobb getting a shovel pass/run play. So they can play run pass based only on personnel. I would love to get Quarless back and be able to run/throw with two effective blocking TEs who could also get out into a pattern.

On Defense, the Packers would adjust to motion or alignment, play a zone and then get caught late on the play I learned to hate in 2009/10; the late crossing route. I felt like the Giants could manipulate the Packers D to their will far too many times.

Some of that is youth on defense. Matthews or Woodson (or Collins) might have tattooed someone in a similar circumstance or called a different Defense. But like House having a largely effective game versus Hicks, I am encouraged by the young players. Less encouraged by the pass rush.

Offense has me more worried with inept play all season on the line.

[sharpe1027]

Less encouraged by the pass rush.

Given the combination of Moses/Zombo/Walden, it was to be somewhat expected. Did anyone else notice several blatant holds on Moses? He was giving the Giants' RT some trouble with his speed, but got hooked and grabbed several times with no call.

[Guiness]

Given the combination of Moses/Zombo/Walden, it was to be somewhat expected. Did anyone else notice several blatant holds on Moses? He was giving the Giants' RT some trouble with his speed, but got hooked and grabbed several times with no call.

Geez, was the hold worse than the one that did get called, against Crabtree blocking JPP? The replay showed very little, other than the offended appealing to the ref. Successfully.

[Freak Out]

Given the combination of Moses/Zombo/Walden, it was to be somewhat expected. Did anyone else notice several blatant holds on Moses? He was giving the Giants' RT some trouble with his speed, but got hooked and grabbed several times with no call.

I seem to remember seeing him tackled a few times.

[Patler]

I liked the theory behind this, but then I remembered just how bad it can be having an incompetent RT. Anyone remember Allen Barbre's infamous stint at RT? He is proof that sometimes it is better to have two crappy players than a single really really really really really crappy player. I'm not saying Barclay is necessarily that bad, but he may be bad enough to justify sticking with their current lineup.

We won't know unless they try it. Barclay struggled early in camp at the one-on-one drill, but was 15-5 the last two weeks. Bulaga commented on his toughness, nasty streak and all-out effort on every play. Scouts have said he has a chance to make it in the NFL because he understands the game, has good technique and can play anywhere. Concerns are his strength, power and overall athleticism. In a lot of ways, he is almost the opposite of Barbre.

Sure, Barbre was a disaster but Tauscher was not. We won't know if he is more Tauscher-like or Barbre-like until he plays.

[sharpe1027]

We won't know unless they try it. Barclay struggled early in camp at the one-on-one drill, but was 15-5 the last two weeks. Bulaga commented on his toughness, nasty streak and all-out effort on every play. Scouts have said he has a chance to make it in the NFL because he understands the game, has good technique and can play anywhere. Concerns are his strength, power and overall athleticism. In a lot of ways, he is almost the opposite of Barbre.

Sure, Barbre was a disaster but Tauscher was not. We won't know if he is more Tauscher-like or Barbre-like until he plays.

You are right that we won't know, but the coaches might already have a pretty good idea. As for the positive praise, I heard a lot of positive praise for Barbre prior to them starting him. They may be opposite players, but that doesn't mean they won't have similar results. He might be OK, but the coaches know he is an option and he has not got so much as a sniff of playing time.

If the line play does not improve, they may get desperate enough to put him in, but I won't hold my breath for a big improvement.