Clarifying Kevin Gilbride's remark about the running backs

by Ed Valentine on Nov 15, 2009 9:06 AM EST in New York Giants News

When offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride said the other day he does not control the Giants running back rotation -- running backs coach Jerald Ingram does -- that caused confusion and set off a bit of a firestorm around here.

So I reached out to some of the Giants beat writers for their thoughts on the situation. Ralph Vacchiano of the New York Daily News took the bait and offers this interpretation of the lines of authority.

My understanding is that it's basically correct. Ingram sets the RB rotation and Gilbride calls the plays based on who's in. Some of that is because Ingram is on the field and knows better who is tired, who is hurting, etc. Some of that is just delegation of responsibility that's at least a little bit necessary.

Now, I'm sure before hand they thoroughly discuss who is going to be in the game when, and how many carries each guy should get. But if Gilbride is dissecting the defense and calling the offensive plays, you don't want him charting how many plays each RB gets. You want him focused on the scheme and the calls. But there is a plan. For example, Coughlin said he wanted Jacobs in and fresh at the end of the San Diego game -- which he was. It was up to Ingram to make sure of that, so he put in Bradshaw in the late third and early fourth quarters to give Jacobs a breather. But in the end, the Giants got the guy they wanted in the game at crunch time.

I'm also sure that Gilbride knows ahead of time who'll be in on what drive or in what situations -- goal line, third downs, etc., etc. I'm also guessing he probably has the power to scream into the headset "Get me Jacobs". Ditto for Coughlin. Ingram doesn't have complete authority in that regard. He's just in charge of making sure the RBs rotate in accordance with the plan that was discussed during the week.

As I have thought about the situation I figured this was largely the case. Having Ralph spell it out makes me feel a little better, though. I hope it helps you guys, too.

[NOTE: I will post an open thread later today if you guys want to use it to chat about any of today's games.]

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

"...helps you guys,,," etc.

Sure does. It’s a relief to know that the communication problem among the coaches (if there is one) is, at the very least, far less serious than it looked. Of course there’re still those communication problems between coaches and players and among players themselves that have to be addressed.

by blue gonz on Nov 15, 2009 9:13 AM EST reply actions

PS, the clarification

doesn’t explain KG’s response to questions re RB rotation. I guess he just misspoke. Given what Vachiano said, though, one question remains: why didn’t KG just answer them to avoid the confusion in the first place?

by blue gonz on Nov 15, 2009 9:19 AM EST up reply actions

Agreed, George

I just think that, in the end, KG did not answer the question very well. He made it sound like he is calling plays without knowing which back is in there, and that can’t be the case.

by Ed Valentine on Nov 15, 2009 9:32 AM EST up reply actions

Good to know...

and yea, I can see how it works now.

So…I guess this means we can yell at Gilbride again for know who’s in there and still calling dives with Bradshaw and sweeps with Jacobs?

"It ain't over till its over"---

by FreeBradshaw on Nov 15, 2009 9:14 AM EST reply actions

I have a question then

If said RB rotation is planned or discussed as RV alluded to, how is it justified to keep going to a RB that is less effective? For instance, AB (cracked bone) for the last three weeks is averaging under 3 yards a carry, while he’s getting similar carry totals to Jacobs. I know Ware was available last week, perhaps he could’ve seen more carries?

Now i’m not knocking AB, because i know his situation and Ware has been out, but it would seem logical to “plan accordingly”, if AB is less effective or god forbid is finally shutdown because of his foot. Also, i know they have to spell Jacobs sometimes, or if he gets dinged up but is able to comeback, but wouldn’t it be better to implement another plan if AB is not running normally? He’s injured and it’s not like he’s in a slump!

by Hootman on Nov 15, 2009 10:19 AM EST reply actions