Running Back position

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Re: Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]Laz, if the pats have long drives early in the game, in order to limit the number of possessions by both teams and resulting in a low scoring affair, doesn't this actually give the Giants and edge? I think they do have to mix up the play calls, but go no huddle early and score quickly to get a 14 pt. lead, stay aggressive on both sides of the ball - and try to run away with the game. At least that would make be feel better w/ a humungous lead...lol
    Posted by BubbaInHawaii[/QUOTE]

    Lol...  Sorry bubba, as usual I write out my ideas...and mind you, they're often pretty decent ideas (bare minimum- they're original), YET I always tend to omit a key component or two that most other folks, usually remember to at least mention.  Here?  The "Why" (Many people decide to at least touch upon the reasons behind & what has led them to their general thoughts, thesis & overall conclusions).  


    Alright... Simple (I just didn't express it openly...at all).  Giants are built on athleticism.  NY's Defense (particular collection of personell hey favor in their set-up as a whole unit)- hedges more towards adding more onto the taller size, speed, and athleticism column, while taking a bit more AWAY from those fuller & lower sized bulkiness/stoutness aspects of these players.  Again, Im simply offering this as a basic & general consensus, without wrong or right (there is none...simply the method, they themselves favor to accomplish the particulars of their defensive aim).

    In NY's defensive personell & unit being hedged in this way, in the emphasis of speed, length, and athleticism (while thus, taking parts away from the stout, bulk, and fullness in size ratios, aspects, and physical components of their guys & standard groupings)- A Gameplan for NE which BEGINS their offensive gameplan by focusing with any sorta up-tempo, or spread/open, and/or favor the pass (even just a bit more than the running game), Will NOT imho be the wisest of strategies for NE to exploit the physical shortcomings that NY has set-up for themselves as their unique defensive look, (in favor of different physical additions in their particular look).  Any early focus on up-tempo...and/or greater focus on spread offensive looks...and/or greater focus on establishing the passing game early, over establishing the running game early, WILL imo=Play Right Into The actual inherent STRENGTHS of The NY Giant's particular collection of defensive personell, and the strengths of their unit set-up en masse.  

    Much less sense attempting to outrun and out hustle someone who's long, rangy, speedy, and athletic as the early focus of yourinitial staring strategy.  To wear out a person who has these qualities in droves (again, in lieu of different lesser qualities), doesn't make any sense (especially when it comes down to the game wearing on in the 3rd/4th quarters).  Mmm-mm, imo ya gotta out physical them first and foremost...  I'm not even saying that'cha gotta even spend an ENTIRE first half of gameplan towards out-muscling/out-sizing/and out-"physicaling" them...but'cha gotta wear them down THIS way, in order to tire them and their lengthy sized, speedy, and athletic personell/greater unit, In order to be ABLE to exploit NY's Defense with the 2nd aspect of my gameplan...(i.e. when you're attempting to open them up, pour it on, and finish them off, as your complimentary & second part of SB game strategy).  


    Yes...this will keep the game closer early on.  But the idea is to frustrate NY's specific strengths, even if it means that you maybe might not be able to jump out to an early big lead (ZERO promises that this would actually happen...far less so, with the way NY's D is set-up in fact).  This is a marathon race, and the actual course is the uniqueness of the team that your squaring off against.  Belichick's own often-misunderstood mantra: "To win, you need to remove the other team's strengths."  Because most tacticians would ostensibly attempt to focus on spending their focus trying to exploit that opponent's weaknesses, right?  It took me awhile, to fully grasp the ends of Belichick's aim in prescribing to this mantra he (and others) have phrased as his M.O..  Think I understand better now...  Belichick's NOT saying that you SHOULDN'T aim towards exploiting an opponent's weaknesses...He IS saying (at least I think...never really know with Bill Belichick): That in order to be able to be in that prime position to exploit an opponent's weak areas/aspects, you NEED to first counter, check, and frustrate, said opponent's strengths...

    Dig?           

    (not gonna reiterate the particulars of the strategy, just see previous post of mine) 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrbungle. Show mrbungle's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    BB can overlook BJGE's lack of elite speed and other things. 

    Everyone knows that when the BIG games come, it's all about turnovers. "Whoever turns the ball over most usually loses the game."

    BJGE has not only gone fumble free in the NFL but, he never fumbled, not ONCE, even in college. To BB, that is the Numero Uno stat. 

    I expect BJGE to get the ball for a fair number of carries in the SB and he'll be back in his same role next year. The Patriots had the luxury of not really needing Vereen this season and letting him learn the plays. Next year we'll see more of him and he'll surprise a lot of people. Meanwhile, Ridley can run and he has the potential but.......don't think he's not in the doghouse with those recent fumbles. You fumble, espcecially as a young player, and he sits you. Period. 

    No way they don't keep Woodhead next year. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Re: Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Running Back position : Lol...  Sorry bubba , as usual I write out my ideas...and mind you, they're often pretty decent ideas (bare minimum- they're original), YET I always tend to omit a key component or two that most other folks, usually remember to at least mention.  Here?  The "Why" (Many people decide to at least touch upon the reasons behind & what has led them to their general thoughts, thesis & overall conclusions).   Alright... Simple (I just didn't express it openly...at all).  Giants are built on athleticism.  NY's Defense (particular collection of personell hey favor in their set-up as a whole unit)- hedges more towards adding more onto the taller size, speed, and athleticism column, while taking a bit more AWAY from those fuller & lower sized bulkiness/stoutness aspects of these players.  Again, Im simply offering this as a basic & general consensus, without wrong or right (there is none...simply the method, they themselves favor to accomplish the particulars of their defensive aim). In NY's defensive personell & unit being hedged in this way, in the emphasis of speed, length, and athleticism (while thus, taking parts away from the stout, bulk, and fullness in size ratios, aspects, and physical components of their guys & standard groupings)- A Gameplan for NE which BEGINS their offensive gameplan by focusing with any sorta up-tempo, or spread/open, and/or favor the pass (even just a bit more than the running game), Will NOT imho be the wisest of strategies for NE to exploit the physical shortcomings that NY has set-up for themselves as their unique defensive look, (in favor of different physical additions in their particular look).  Any early focus on up-tempo...and/or greater focus on spread offensive looks...and/or greater focus on establishing the passing game early, over establishing the running game early, WILL imo=Play Right Into The actual inherent STRENGTHS of The NY Giant's particular collection of defensive personell, and the strengths of their unit set-up en masse.   Much less sense attempting to outrun and out hustle someone who's long, rangy, speedy, and athletic as the early focus of yourinitial staring strategy.  To wear out a person who has these qualities in droves (again, in lieu of different lesser qualities), doesn't make any sense (especially when it comes down to the game wearing on in the 3rd/4th quarters).  Mmm-mm, imo ya gotta out physical them first and foremost...  I'm not even saying that'cha gotta even spend an ENTIRE first half of gameplan towards out-muscling/out-sizing/and out-"physicaling" them...but'cha gotta wear them down THIS way, in order to tire them and their lengthy sized, speedy, and athletic personell/greater unit, In order to be ABLE to exploit NY's Defense with the 2nd aspect of my gameplan...(i.e. when you're attempting to open them up, pour it on, and finish them off, as your complimentary & second part of SB game strategy).   Yes...this will keep the game closer early on.  But the idea is to frustrate NY's specific strengths, even if it means that you maybe might not be able to jump out to an early big lead (ZERO promises that this would actually happen...far less so, with the way NY's D is set-up in fact).  This is a marathon race, and the actual course is the uniqueness of the team that your squaring off against.  Belichick's own often-misunderstood mantra: "To win, you need to remove the other team's strengths."  Because most tacticians would ostensibly attempt to focus on spending their focus trying to exploit that opponent's weaknesses, right?  It took me awhile, to fully grasp the ends of Belichick's aim in prescribing to this mantra he (and others) have phrased as his M.O..  Think I understand better now...  Belichick's NOT saying that you SHOULDN'T aim towards exploiting an opponent's weaknesses...He IS saying (at least I think...never really know with Bill Belichick): That in order to be able to be in that prime position to exploit an opponent's weak areas/aspects, you NEED to first counter, check, and frustrate, said opponent's strengths... Dig?            (not gonna reiterate the particulars of the strategy, just see previous post of mine) 
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]

    Have you been reading The Art of War by Sun Tzu again?  Laughing
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Re: Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Running Back position : Have you been reading The Art of War by Sun Tzu again? 
    Posted by BubbaInHawaii[/QUOTE]

    Know your enemy, and never allow for either detrimental personal ends, pointless outsider ends, nor frivilous tactical ends, outweigh your greater & ultimate goal.  
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Re: Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Running Back position : Know your enemy, and never allow for either detrimental personal ends, pointless outsider ends, nor frivilous tactical ends, outweigh your greater & ultimate goal.  
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]

    I'm sure BB will be posting something similar in the locker room tomorrow Laughing
     

Share