The Giants' offensive play calling against the Arizona Cardinals to say the least was disappointing.
It was not at all the type of game that the Giants should have been looking to have against a high voltage offensive team like the Cards. Teams like the Cardinals who have an explosive offense and lack luster defense want games that become shootouts, and the last thing the Giants should have allowed was a shootout.
However, this was not the case, and I put no blame on the defense as stopping the Cardinals offense is not an easy task as they average around 380 yards per game and about 28 points per contest, you can only hope to contain them.
The game plan should have been to run the ball, control the clock, and not allow the Cards offense on the field. Kevin Gilbride, offensive coordinator for the Giants, failed at doing so, choosing a shoot out over a show down.
Here are some interesting statistics I found about the game that explain where the Giants went wrong, allowing this game to be a close eight point victory:
1. Giants' time of possession was 30:27 compared to the Cards' 29:23.
Yes the Giants controlled the clock for a mere one minute and 14 seconds more than their opponents. Equal time on the field for both offenses inevitably led to the game becoming a shootout and a high scoring affair.
Either the Giants didn't execute, or the play calling was to blame. In this instance it was the play calling no doubt because the Giants put up big points, but not because of the run, which meant not holding onto the ball and limiting the chances the Cards offense would have.
Throwing more than running usually does not lead to a ball control game, which leads me to my next point...
2. Kevin Gilbride went away from the run.
The Giants ran the ball 25 times compared to 33 passes. This is a fairly balanced game plan, except when you should be trying to control the clock.
The Giants only ran the ball on back to back plays FIVE times out of the 25 runs compared to eleven back to back pass plays throughout the game. The Giants are the best running team in football and in a 60 minute game they managed only to call five back to back running plays.
Very few, if any running backs in football can get going and get a rhythm running that sporadically throughout a game. The number of back to back plays should really be four times though as one of those instances came at the end of the first half when trying to run out the clock and kill the cards timeouts.
3. Ahmad Bradshaw was not used.
Now when Brandon Jacobs is available it is understandable that Bradshaw is limited, but Jacobs was not available and all of a sudden the Giants went from a three back system to a one back system.
Is this odd to anyone else? Let's do the math. You have earth, wind, and fire. An earthquake happens and earth needs to take a break, that leaves you with wind and fire. That is still a two back system!
Bradshaw received four carries throughout the game, his work load practically decreased with Jacobs out and Gilbride failed to give him the chance to create a spark in the running game as usual.
comments (10) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
PUT BRADSHAW IN RIGHT AWAY AGAINST WASHINGTON. WHEN JACOBS WAS HURT LAST YEAR, DIDN'T BRADSHAW DO THE JOB. WAKE UP, WE HAVE 3 GOOD RUNERS. BRADSHAW IS NOT A KICK OFF PERSON, ONLY HICKSON. HE IS A GOOD STRONG RUNNER, AND IF YOU KEEP ON THE SIDELINES FOREVER, IT WILL BE GOODBYE..
about 1 month ago
The blind hatred for Kevin Gilbride is really getting irritating. It was completely warranted last year, with disasters like Minnesota and Washington (home). But come on! This is the league-leading offense with 30 points a game. I know our offense is talented, but that's not in spite of the offensive coordinator.
Referencing the TOP point... maybe one reason for that is we started at their 12, 30, and 35 on three separate possessions. It's kinda tough to rack up yardage totals when you are starting in opposing team's territory.
And Gilbride had a right to stray away from the run. They were putting nine in the box with a suspect secondary. Eli plays his best in the dome and he was clearly feeling it. What's the problem with passing it?
Gilbride isn't perfect. No problem admitting that. But he has a great relationship with his offense, one that very few teams have with their offensive coordinator. The players calmly go over to him, explain what they see, and he typically does a good job implementing that. For what he lacks in brilliant mastermind play calling, he makes up for his player-relationship. Keep in mind Eli Manning has grown up with him too. They have great continuity.
You guys gotta learn to deal with him. I'm fine with 30 points a game.
from about 1 month ago
This is what I love about sports, we can agree to disagree, and you make some very good points. It is very hard to try to fix something that isn't all the way broken, but keep in mind that I am not asking for more points, I too am very satisfied with 30 points a game. We will agree to disagree on this one, I cannot argue with player relationships, I believe that is why Spags gets so much out of his defense. You don't change if it is working I admit that, but as a fan I do wish for someone else, good reasons though I respect your outlook!!
about 1 month ago
David is absolutely 100 percent on this.
Eli did the job as the Cards keyed on the run. Period.
One of the exciting things about the NYG is how each week there's a new offensive star. This time, it was Hixon. Bradshaw will come up big when they need him. Last year, they reserved him for late in the season.
Again, much ado about nothing.
about 1 month ago
I fail to see the logic in this article. You choose to pick the one game where the Giants best RB is out for the game and besides, the Giants had complete control of this game in the second half regardless how close the score was. It was the Giant defense who let up the big lead at the end. Offensively the Giants had the Cards number in the second half, WITHOUT their number one RB and number one WR! I understand the philosophy to run the ball more, but the effect of a power/elusive run game wasnt present. Derrick Ward and Ahmad Bradshaw have a similar type of running style, therefore the running game wasnt as present as normal. I think this article should be rewritten to how Eli Manning once again put his team on his shoulders and took the Giants to victory without two of the best players on offense.
from about 1 month ago
I can't hate on eli, no way no how, he stepped up when called upon and delivered. I wouldn't necessarily say that the Giants had the Cards number though. Remember that if that onside kick isn't butchered by Ralph Brown, its a whole new ball game, it was not by any means a comfortable win. I feel like if we focused on controlling the ball more it could have been a more comfortable win indeed. A shootout was not in our best interest and that was the reason for a close 8 point win.
With respect to Ward and Bradshaw being similar, they are and they aren't, Bradshaw is much more of a slasher with quicker cut back ability. Ward is a little more traditional in that he is a downhill runner who can cut, but enjoys throwing that stiff arm in your face. Still two different running styles in my opinion, but that is only my opinion.
As for the running game not being present as normal, yes it was not because Jacobs wasn't there, but the blocking was normal and ward and bradshaw are proven, so in that sense the ground game could have been present as normal.
As for choosing the one game where the giants best rb is out, I wanted to make clear that bradshaw was not used as he should have been having only a mere four carries. It was disappointing that having two amazing back-ups didn't lend itself to staying with the run. I love the discussion, lets go beat the 'skins!!
about 1 month ago
BTW I have a feeling the Giants plan is to keep Bradshaw as fresh as they possibly can so that in December-January he'll have fresh legs and be able to play as well as he did down the stretch as he did last year.
from about 1 month ago
I hope so, I would love to see him on the field a little more
about 1 month ago
Also, one thing about Bradshaw, is that he's the only RB we have locked up after this year. I know we're most likely going to sign Jacobs, or at least Ward, but if we're gonna put some wear-and-tear milage, it might as well be Jacobs and Ward. Yes. keep Bradshaw fresh for this post-season, but also, because it may not be that far in teh future that he might have to carry a 20-touch load for a few games, or maybe even a full season.
from about 1 month ago
Either Jacobs or ward will be resigned, I don't see them both though, with the seasons each are having, the money just won't be there, I say Jacobs stays, ward goes, I would love to keep them both. We will see with Bradshaw.
write a new comment