Well, it's a bit of hyperbole as they do have a short passing game (although Eli's bad at throwing screen passes), but Coughlin's offense has always been predicated on the deep throw and Eli's primary/secondary reads have been long and intermediary routes (and Coughlin has admitted this). I believe you have clearly stated that Eli misses a lot of the short open receivers, but part of the reason that he misses them is that they're the last read the majority of the time.
Coughlin and Arians had a similiar philosophy, I mean Eli does throw a nice deep ball and he has on them alot in the last couple of years, it has worked (but with a Gimp Nicks and no Manningham it has clearly suffered this year). I'm not critical of Gilbride (let's face it Eli audibles into run all the times and this is also Tom's offense not Gilbrides), because it has clearly worked in the past.
Doubtful, IMO. Just coming off of a Super Bowl win he'll get another season (as he should IMO).
I think his scheme/game planning is more often than not solid. I see execution as being a bigger factor in our defensive woes along with personnel. At the end of the day, through three different coordinators the identity of the Giants defense hasn't changed. It's predicated on a monster four man pass rush. That's what Acorsi helped to build and what Reese continues to focus on. If those horses on the front line can't get home, the defense is exposed. Unless we're going to make a fundamental shift in drafting philosophy, I don't see that changing anytime soon.
As for Perry, the common complaints are:
-Fewell doesn't blitz enough - So? We've been at the top of the league in sacks for years now even under Fewell until this season. His defensive scheme is run on the belief that our front four can dominate. Up until this season, they have been able to do so more often than not at the right time.
- Fewell plays too much zone - Ok, so the downside is that our personnel is supposedly better at playing press. Are they? I've yet to see a consistent demonstration of that since 2008 when we ran Spags blitz heavy scheme. We're at a point where the old is being wiped away with new blood so I'm curious to see what these younger guys do in the scheme before saying too much zone is a problem. Here's what I do know: Fewell's zone heavy scheme has resulted in a defense that has been incredible at generating turnovers in the three years he's been coordinator. That's a positive that gets ignored far too often.
- The Giants can't stop the run - This is one area where I agree and I believe scheme is somewhat to blame but when you look at that 6 game stretch to win the SB, something clicked from both a scheme and personnel issue that needs to be recaptured. I think losing T2 and then seeing that his linebackers weren't as ready as he thought they were to take over for the loss of Grant put a damper on some of the things he wanted to do on defense. I think losing Kenny really hurt things as well since that took the fallback 3 safety look away unless you start depending on young guys like Will Hill and Sash.
I'm sure there's more including Fewell not being great at in-game adjustments but we've seen varying personnel groupings all season long (even a 4-4-3 and 4-4-2-1 in the Ravens game to try and help with the run game).
I understand the dislike but I'm for giving Fewell another opportunity with a restocked group before saying "yeah, its the scheme that's the problem". Sheridan was dumped because the players never bought in. That's not an issue with Fewell and I think calling for his firing is more reactionary than anything else (calling for Gilbride's firing is laughable).
His schemes have definitely had some bad days (Colts in 2010, Ravens last week).
1. People aren't just calling out the lack of blitzing, it's how fucking pathetic his blitz packages are, compare them to Spag's it like night and day. Part of the reason is that we have terrible blitzers currently, but the blitzers under Spag's days weren't great either. And yes having a dominant front four is fine, but if you keep them on an island like they have too much, they are going to get worn down. Tuck would be fine if a situational players, not playing 30 downs and 10 of them being double teamed.
2. Playing a zone is fine, but playing a zone with a press cb is bad, you saw Webster under Lewis, and how he totally changed under Spags. You also saw last year what happened with Asomougah with Philadelphia last year, it's just a bad fit for the player. And yes we do generate a ton of turnovers, but we also give a shit ton of yards, and when we aren't getting those turnovers shit happens.
3. I'll honestly give Fewell something here, we have bad linebackers and Reese likes to draft rush tackles instead of big fatties, and our big fatties got hurt this year (Rogers). His track record in Buffalo suggests that this is a trend though, good pass defense but absolutely terrible against the run.
I want Fewell gone, but I don't blame him, He's just a bad fit for the talent, and Reese is going to draft who's he going to draft. You need to supplement Reese's talent with a Coach that is better suited for his talent, as Reese isn't going anywhere. Also, Osi clearly called out Fewell earlier this year, and you can see there's still some c confusion in the ranks, especially in the secondary (all though I rememember Eric from BBI said that might because we don't have Grant anymore).
Fewell's gone if we get blown out again like the last two games. John Mara isn't as forgiving as his father and I'm glad for it.