Network Forums Giants Gilbride in full "play not to lose mode"
Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
Gilbride in full "play not to lose mode"
11 years ago  ::  Nov 22, 2009 - 4:34PM #11
qwik3457
Posts: 11,989

Nov 22, 2009 -- 4:30PM, JonahFalcon wrote:


That's nice, but the possession before the Browns got the ball for the TD to tie it was pathetic.




Yes, it was; due to lousy execution by the offense, and good execution by the Falcons' defense in that series.


The playcalls were a downfield pass, a run, and a downfield pass.


On the 1st pass call, Eli looked downfield before checking off to Boss. On the 2nd pass, it was Eli, not Gilbride who saw a big blitz coming, and audibled out of it.

Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
11 years ago  ::  Nov 22, 2009 - 5:30PM #12
BaseballBugs
Posts: 1,456

Nov 22, 2009 -- 4:26PM, qwik3457 wrote:


It wasn't because of Gilbride's playcalling. How about the vaunted defense making a key stop, ever?




Yeah. A loss would have totally been on the D. Pass rush needs to pick it up and you need to stop leaving people wide open.


As for Gilbride, you can't bash him for one failed drive and not give him credit for the previous 5.

11 years ago  ::  Nov 22, 2009 - 6:02PM #13
ratman
Posts: 3,416

again the main problem with the giants is their  defense , especially in the 4th quarter

http://s275.photobucket.com/albums/jj299/whoryou_album/?action=view¤t=MyBannerMaker_Banner.gif


*MEMBER OF THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT CONSERVATIVE ALLIANCE*
11 years ago  ::  Nov 23, 2009 - 8:40AM #14
HGH
Posts: 187

Nov 22, 2009 -- 4:26PM, qwik3457 wrote:


Nov 22, 2009 -- 4:22PM, JonahFalcon wrote:


qwik? Why was it an OT game instead of a 34-31 win in regulation?




It wasn't because of Gilbride's playcalling. How about the vaunted defense making a key stop, ever?




 


Between Bill Sheridan and Kevin Gilbride, Giants won't see the playoffs. They should have gotten a REAL DC, not a linebackers coach.

11 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2009 - 12:15PM #15
JonahFalcon
Posts: 25,531

Wanna defend the conservative playcalling? Down 16-3, and you kick a 52 yard FG? Of course, the Broncos answer with a TD. 

11 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2009 - 12:59PM #16
qwik3457
Posts: 11,989

Nov 27, 2009 -- 12:15PM, JonahFalcon wrote:


Wanna defend the conservative playcalling? Down 16-3, and you kick a 52 yard FG? Of course, the Broncos answer with a TD. 




Wow, are you stupid.


They're getting blasted off the ball on both lines. The Broncos are dominating the game every which way.


And you're faulting Coughlin for not going for it on 4th and 24, and kicking a FG to make it a 10 point game?


Words fail me in the face of such monumental stupidity.


Oh, wait. I know why you're really angry. Tynes made a 52-yarder, and you can't stand anything that tends to make Tynes look good. That must be it. Nobody could really suggest not going for it  on 4th and 24 is "conservative play calling".

Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
11 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2009 - 1:03PM #17
JonahFalcon
Posts: 25,531

If I recall, Parcells went for it on a 4th and 22 many moons ago. How'd that work out?

11 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2009 - 1:30PM #18
qwik3457
Posts: 11,989

Nov 27, 2009 -- 1:03PM, JonahFalcon wrote:


If I recall, Parcells went for it on a 4th and 22 many moons ago. How'd that work out?




Oh, yeah, EXACT same situation.


"Trailing the Minnesota Vikings 20–19 with 72 seconds left in the fourth quarter at the Metrodome in week 11, Phil Simms completed a desperate fourth and 17 pass to Bobby Johnson for a first down. The completion led to Raul Allegre's fifth field goal and an important Giants victory 22–20."


And that team was already 9-2; not 6-4. Yeah, that's exactly the same as going for it on 4th and 24, down by 13, late in the 3rd quarter. 

Wow, are you stupid.

Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
11 years ago  ::  Nov 28, 2009 - 2:12AM #19
JonahFalcon
Posts: 25,531

qwik? What would have been lost had the Giants went for it? Oooh, if they miss, it would have been 26-3.


It's not just one play - it's symptomatic of a bigger problem.


52 yard field goal? For what? You. Go. For. It.

11 years ago  ::  Nov 28, 2009 - 7:07AM #20
qwik3457
Posts: 11,989

Nov 28, 2009 -- 2:12AM, JonahFalcon wrote:


qwik? What would have been lost had the Giants went for it? Oooh, if they miss, it would have been 26-3.


It's not just one play - it's symptomatic of a bigger problem.


52 yard field goal? For what? You. Go. For. It.




And if they get a first down there, do they automatically score a TD? Really? And if they score a TD there, it would've be 23-10 after the Broncos answer with a touchdown. The Giants were getting beaten soundly on both lines all night long.


===================================


Wow. Are. You. Stupid.


You do NOT go for it on 4th and 24, unless you have no time left and you must score a TD right now.


A FG there makes it a 10 point game with over a quarter left.


Go for it on 4th and 24? In that spot? Not a coach in the league does that; not Parcells, not Belichick.


Symptomatic of what? Your immature inability to deal with your team losing games, and trailing in another?

Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
Jump Menu:
 
Network Forums Giants Gilbride in full "play not to lose mode"
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

Yankees Forum