Unlike Jason Garrett, New York Giants WR Kenny Golladay says Freddie Kitchens is more open to input from players.
[mm-video type=playlist id=01eqbx61yex5whq8aq player_id=none image=https://giantswire.usatoday.com/wp-content/plugins/mm-video/images/playlist-icon.png]
Shortly before Jason Garrett was fired as the New York Giants’ offensive coordinator, quarterback Daniel Jones made a curious comment about coach-player communication.
During the team’s bye week, Jones indicated that Garrett was in complete control of the offensive game plan. And while some level of input was welcomed, all decisions were ultimately Garrett’s to make.
“I think I’m a player in my third year versus coaches who have been around the game a lot longer than me and seen a lot. I feel like there are times I can give my input and kind of what I think,” Jones said at the time. “Most of the game plan comes from the coaches and what they see.”
It was a throwaway comment, but one that seems much more significant now.
On Thursday, wide receiver Kenny Golladay — who was careful to sidestep direct criticism of Garrett — raved about the change at play-caller. He indicated that Freddie Kitchen, the team’s senior offensive assistant, is much more receptive to input from players throughout the week and during a game.
“It’s huge. You can come over to the sideline and actually, since you’re the one out there running, you can actually tell them what you’re seeing,” Golladay said. “It’s one thing running it on the field and a coach standing on the sideline trying to get all the way on the other side of the field. Just going in there and giving them good information, and not giving them selfish information.”
It seems obvious to want input from players, but apparently that’s only a recent trend in East Rutherford. And it would help explain why Golladay had blown up on Garrett earlier this season and been more critical of him just prior to the very public firing.
For Kitchens, listening to player input is second nature. It’s more a natural reaction than a conscious decision.
“You need to get a sense and feel for what they’re comfortable with. To me, why would you call something, and this is the way our staff believes, why would you call something if a player’s not comfortable running it? It’s your job to get them comfortable running it,” Kitchen said. “If you think it’s a good scheme or a good play or whatever the case may be, it’s your job to get them comfortable doing it. But if you can’t get them to that point, it’s kind of diminishing returns.
“I think this is a never-ending process. It’s constant communication. That’s what we try to stress is it’s communication between coach and coach, coach and player, player to coach. It’s always constant communication, so I wouldn’t put a number on it. So I think it’s always a continual process.”
The fact that this level of communication did not exist under Garrett is jarring. It also explains why the offense was drastically under-performing and why the play-calling seemed so stagnant.
Results weren’t significantly better under Kitchens in Week 12, but some new wrinkles were obvious. The coach-player communication improvement was also obvious.
“We need input from everybody. I think we do a good job of communicating, working through things,” Kitchens added. “What do we want to do here? Who are we trying to attack? What personnel do we want to use? Everybody has different suggestions and that’s how we roll, but that’s not unique to any other situation I think you find across the league.”
Kitchens went on to say this level of communication is the norm around the NFL and that every staff does it. Every staff except for the Giants’ previous one, apparently. But at least they’ve gone from living in the 1980s to the 2020s. One small step at a time.
Follow the Giants Wire Podcast:
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts
