More Banjo - Packers at Giants

[George Cumby]

I wasn’t happy with Love’s play but if his teammates hold on to the ball he is 21 of 26 and we make a few more 3rd down conversions and keep drives going.

We have multiple players getting knocked out of the game every week. It’s like a MASH unit out there and MiLF needs to realize that and change his play calling.

I counted at least five drops. That would've changed his stats..... and drives, considerably.

How many drops did our DB's have? FML.

[George Cumby]

Had to.

Low hanging fruit, but on point.

[Fritz]

Low hanging fruit, but on point.

It was a shit show, win or not.

At least Havrisak's got an easy nickname. He's Havrisuck now. Windy or not, his kicks (including his last kickoff) were awful, not even close. So much for a kicker controversy.

I would also say anyone who's still bagging on Love needs to watch this game. It's not on Love. He dun good. His receivers pooped the bed like it was 2024, and his offensive line isn't helping much, though keeping Brooks in to block (or Whylie, maybe too?) helped a bit.

If Jacobs being out for a game forces The Flower to be more creative with this offense, then it's not all bad. But let's hope it's just for a game.

Doubs was lousy today, and he's usually the dependable one.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Another VERY unsatisfying win, which of course, is better than no win at all.

Both our lines got beat badly on the line of scrimmage. Love was rushed virtually every pass play. Most of the decent run plays were in spite of bad blocking, not because of good blocking.

If you combine Valentine's coverage skill and Nixon's tackling ability, you might have one decent Corner. Unfortunately, Valentine is a mediocre tackler at best, and damn Nixon can't cover shit.

I was thinking extremely positive when they traded for Parsons, but I'm definitely getting less enthused about him. Time after time after fucking time, he almost gets there - which might be ok if we had decent pass coverage, but we do not.

LaFleur's lame-assed play calling made another game close that shouldn't have been.

Special teams was somewhere between mediocre and downright bad - and that IMO is coaching.

The team should still be able to snap out of the funk and be dominant, but each week like this makes that seem less likely.

Thanks for the review. I overslept and missed the damn game. Looks like Peerless Parsons had 1.5 sacks. Looks like he had a nice game.

Btw, Tex, when in hell did you become a pessimist? Every Sunday is getting more bleak - a fresh poison each week.

[falco]

What was wrong with the playcalling? Half the incompletions were drops and they averaged 5.6 yards per rush. They were 4-4 in the red zone. The only reason they didn't score 30+ was because their defense had trouble getting off the field.

Love or hate MLF, he wasn't the problem today

[falco]

I wasn’t happy with Love’s play but if his teammates hold on to the ball he is 21 of 26 and we make a few more 3rd down conversions and keep drives going.

We have multiple players getting knocked out of the game every week. It’s like a MASH unit out there and MiLF needs to realize that and change his play calling.

I thought Love was on point today, at least from what I saw and heard. Radio made it sound like the dropped long ball to Watson was a dime.

[Joemailman]

I thought Love was on point today, at least from what I saw and heard. Radio made it sound like the dropped long ball to Watson was a dime.

It was. If his receivers caught the ball today, the national pundits would be back to calling him an MVP candidate.

[beveaux1]

It seems that all our focus is on how poorly the offense has played since the first two games of the season. I don’t disagree that our offense can’t seem to get on track, but I believe our defense, or rather, our defensive strategy plays into the problems we have on offense.

Our defense does a very good job of limiting the ypc of the running game of the opposition as well as limiting the yards per pass completion. On paper, this is impressive. The overall defensive yards per game stays in the top 5 to 8 in all of pro football.


Unfortunately, most of the offenses we’ve played, certainly every team we’ve lost to, have played the “we’ll take what you give us” offense. On defense, this is called ”bend but don’t break”. The result of this strategy are long( more than 10 play) drives that eat clock, move slowly down the field while the opposing offense runs 50% of the time, uses short passes to convert on 3rd and 4th down, and chews 7 to 10 minutes of time off the clock.

Even if they don’t score or we hold them to a FG, they’ve succeeded in shortening the game by limiting the number of offensive series that our team gets in a half. We rarely have the ball more than 4 times in a half, and sometimes have only 3 real possessions in a half ( not counting kneel downs, etc.).

When the offense sits on the bench for 7 to 10 minutes of game time and we know that we’re going to have very limited possessions in a half, it’s very hard to get into a rhythm on offense. One bad play or penalty likely means we’ll be giving the ball back to the other team. Certainly, teams with less talent can use this method to take the air out of the ball and make the final result a one score game.

We’re doing this to protect our CBs and limit big plays, but the strength of our team should be our pass rush and by forcing the other team to use their rushing game and short pass game effectively cancels our pass rush advantage. It also limits our ability to score because we don’t get enough possessions.

Maybe our better strategy would be to move out of cover 2 and use more man coverage. Take more chances and basically ask the opposing offense to attempt longer passes. Our pass rush would have more chances to pressure the opposing QB. There would be a lot more 3rd and long ( we could play cover 2 in those situations) and we’d have a better chance to get our offense back on the field. The other side of the coin is that we’d give up more big plays. We’d see the ball more often and we’d very likely score more points.

Personally, I’m very tired of watching weaker teams beat us because they have the last possession in a 6 possession game. It’s happened twice and almost happened 3 more times. It’s easy to blame the offense, but I think our defensive strategy plays into those losses.

[Joemailman]

Luke Musgrave got 2 snaps in the second half. Not sure he's being used correctly, but he was terrible today.

[QBME]

Luke Musgrave got 2 snaps in the second half. Not sure he's being used correctly, but he was terrible today.

Could not watch the game, being in the flatland, but streamed the broadcast. Evidently he had passes put right on his mitts that he just muffed. Pretty soon to fish or cut bait.

[pbmax]

There were several passes, especially early and especially those thrown under duress that could have been more on target and not lead the receiver enough to make a stretch or dive necessary. But a couple of those receivers weren't open by much either. And Love was throwing after dodging some rushers.

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

There were several passes, especially early and especially those thrown under duress that could have been more on target and not lead the receiver enough to make a stretch or dive necessary. But a couple of those receivers weren't open by much either. And Love was throwing after dodging some rushers.

I thought the big difference for this game was Love connected on the passes necessary to win and Winston did not. I also thought the Giants offense looked crisper/better than the Packer offense, and the Packer defense took a step down this week. But I also remember the 70's and 80's so the Packers played GREAT!!

[Fritz]

It seems that all our focus is on how poorly the offense has played since the first two games of the season. I don’t disagree that our offense can’t seem to get on track, but I believe our defense, or rather, our defensive strategy plays into the problems we have on offense.

Our defense does a very good job of limiting the ypc of the running game of the opposition as well as limiting the yards per pass completion. On paper, this is impressive. The overall defensive yards per game stays in the top 5 to 8 in all of pro football.


Unfortunately, most of the offenses we’ve played, certainly every team we’ve lost to, have played the “we’ll take what you give us” offense. On defense, this is called ”bend but don’t break”. The result of this strategy are long( more than 10 play) drives that eat clock, move slowly down the field while the opposing offense runs 50% of the time, uses short passes to convert on 3rd and 4th down, and chews 7 to 10 minutes of time off the clock.

Even if they don’t score or we hold them to a FG, they’ve succeeded in shortening the game by limiting the number of offensive series that our team gets in a half. We rarely have the ball more than 4 times in a half, and sometimes have only 3 real possessions in a half ( not counting kneel downs, etc.).

When the offense sits on the bench for 7 to 10 minutes of game time and we know that we’re going to have very limited possessions in a half, it’s very hard to get into a rhythm on offense. One bad play or penalty likely means we’ll be giving the ball back to the other team. Certainly, teams with less talent can use this method to take the air out of the ball and make the final result a one score game.

We’re doing this to protect our CBs and limit big plays, but the strength of our team should be our pass rush and by forcing the other team to use their rushing game and short pass game effectively cancels our pass rush advantage. It also limits our ability to score because we don’t get enough possessions.

Maybe our better strategy would be to move out of cover 2 and use more man coverage. Take more chances and basically ask the opposing offense to attempt longer passes. Our pass rush would have more chances to pressure the opposing QB. There would be a lot more 3rd and long ( we could play cover 2 in those situations) and we’d have a better chance to get our offense back on the field. The other side of the coin is that we’d give up more big plays. We’d see the ball more often and we’d very likely score more points.

Personally, I’m very tired of watching weaker teams beat us because they have the last possession in a 6 possession game. It’s happened twice and almost happened 3 more times. It’s easy to blame the offense, but I think our defensive strategy plays into those losses.

I don't know enough about football to really know if this is a good idea, but I do know I must've heard Wayne Larivee say about a dozen times "Packer corners are playing back" or "Packer corners are playing soft zone," etc, etc, and that meant that a pedestrian receiver like Isiah Hodges (is that the name?) could catch passes all day long. It does get old. I wonder too if throwing more man coverage in there would give this defense some of its swagger back. That swagger we saw in games one and two. And you make a good point, too, I think, in that the defensive strategy means the offense gets fewer possessions each game, which means more pressure on an already-prressured offense that seems to lumber.

On another note, since I don't know where to put this, has Wayne Larivee kinda lost it as an announcer? I have Sirius XM and so can listen to the Packers' broadcast, and while I have not had a lot of listening experience with Larivee, he made some really weird mistakes. First, he struggled to remember who the opposing team was. Once, he referred to them as the "Jets," and another time as the "Lions." In both instances, moments of excitement. But still. He's a professional announcer. Secondly, at the end of the game, when the Packers had the ball on their own 25 or so on fourth down with about 36 seconds still left on the clock, he asked Larry McCarren if the Packers should even punt. Whuuuut? McCarren called him out, saying you can't run around for 36 seconds on one play, and Larivee backed off quickly, but man, that was such an obviously dumb suggestion even I knew it.

Is he okay? Or is he always like that?

[pbmax]

I don't know enough about football to really know if this is a good idea, but I do know I must've heard Wayne Larivee say about a dozen times "Packer corners are playing back" or "Packer corners are playing soft zone," etc, etc, and that meant that a pedestrian receiver like Isiah Hodges (is that the name?) could catch passes all day long. It does get old. I wonder too if throwing more man coverage in there would give this defense some of its swagger back. That swagger we saw in games one and two. And you make a good point, too, I think, in that the defensive strategy means the offense gets fewer possessions each game, which means more pressure on an already-prressured offense that seems to lumber.

On another note, since I don't know where to put this, has Wayne Larivee kinda lost it as an announcer? I have Sirius XM and so can listen to the Packers' broadcast, and while I have not had a lot of listening experience with Larivee, he made some really weird mistakes. First, he struggled to remember who the opposing team was. Once, he referred to them as the "Jets," and another time as the "Lions." In both instances, moments of excitement. But still. He's a professional announcer. Secondly, at the end of the game, when the Packers had the ball on their own 25 or so on fourth down with about 36 seconds still left on the clock, he asked Larry McCarren if the Packers should even punt. Whuuuut? McCarren called him out, saying you can't run around for 36 seconds on one play, and Larivee backed off quickly, but man, that was such an obviously dumb suggestion even I knew it.

Is he okay? Or is he always like that?

A. They play a cover 3 zone on passing downs when its early or they are in the lead. Corners face the LOS and retreat from the snap unless the receiver breaks off a route immediately and the QB sets to throw. Their responsibility is the deep third. X in the middle.

The other four defenders play short zones. That's either three LBs and EW or EW, Bullard and two LBs. The latter is more common given the personnel the offense tends to send out if trailing.

But the Packers play other stuff on early downs and if they are behind later in the game and the opposing offense is trying to eat clock.

So Wayne was right part of the time, but a LOT of converted third and fourth down throws were against man coverage in the second half. Nixon was pretty close in coverage but Winston was on target for most of the game throwing to the sidelines. The Packers linebackers also had trouble with TE routes in the seam-area zone. The Giants were sending a short route in front of them via RB and that was keeping them from getting depth to make the throw to the TE tougher.

B. Haven't listened to Wayne in a while but I might next week just to hear. I had not noticed nor heard he was losing his fastball.

[bobblehead]

I wasn’t happy with Love’s play but if his teammates hold on to the ball he is 21 of 26 and we make a few more 3rd down conversions and keep drives going.

We have multiple players getting knocked out of the game every week. It’s like a MASH unit out there and MiLF needs to realize that and change his play calling.

People will be disappointed that we didn't blow them out, but the Giants haven't really been blown out much despite their record. They played a really inspired game and the new coach had them fired up and at their best.

Yes our OLine needs to gel and get better. Yes we could do a little better against the run. But ponder this. What if we held on to 2 of the 4 picks that we dropped. Then this is a blowout.

PbMax....as for our shocking 5.6 ypc lets call it 4.6 on runs designed to go to RBs. Still pretty solid. We can back out the Melton and the QB runs for a more accurate picture of the "run game". The Giants benefited from playing 4 down football the entire second half and making some timely plays. I'm calling this a "good" win on the road.