Giant fans have been clamoring for the offense to move to a no huddle offense, for years now. Eli Manning is seemingly more effective in the no huddle, and it keeps the defense off guard. So why don’t they use it more? Let Kevin Gilbride explain:
“The no-huddle at the end is basically doing something which we don’t want to do — we’re just throwing,” Gilbride said. “It’s a little bit easier sometimes in that respect because you’re not worried about balancing. You have 50 seconds before the half to score. You have to do whatever you can to get the ball in the end zone. The last drive you have to get the ball down the field. You have less than two minutes to do it. So from that standpoint, when it’s been no-huddle in that respect we’ve been very good.”
“It’s something that I think can be effective as a change of tempo (in other parts of the game),” Gilbride said. “I don’t think it’s a fantasy and I think you have to be careful. We’re trying to help the defense. We’re trying to hold onto the ball and slow the game down so that we’re on the field as much as we can. If you’re not careful, that sometimes can backfire.”
Basically, the Giants are trying to slow the game down, win a ball control game. No huddle doesn’t do that. No huddle accelerates things. It leaves more room for mistakes. It’s effective for the Giants when they use it sporadically. Think about it: The element of surprise is more effective than the status quo. So, if the Giants are to use the no huddle in late game situations, when ball control doesn’t matter, when they don’t have to set up the run, it’s more effective. If it’s the middle of the 2nd quarter, and the Giants have been using it all game, defenses are going to adjust. But it you use it sporadically, use it occasionally, it’s going to work. I know we harp, a lot, on Kevin Gilbride, and maybe some of it is justified, but the guy knows a heckuva lot more about football than we do. Our goal, then, is to begin to understand why he does what he does, rather than blindly criticize it.