Giants passed the ball 70% in 1st half, 77% in 2nd half

23 of 33 plays in first half were pass plays.

23 of 30 plays in second half were pass plays.

Giants run game=Not good.

We as of now have 1 rb on our roster who if we had to play today could go.

but would anyone be that upset if we took Gurly (which we wont do) with our first pick?

I know that other needs are more pressing (OT and DEF) but if the powers that be decided to pick Gurly to pair with Jennings I would not complain one bit.

I'm sure if they didn't drop every other pass last week, it wouldn't have been a near 50/50 split.

you do not have a starting RB on this team.....Jennings has never started more than 8 games in a season.....now he is 30, and has had two knee injuries.....if the Giants count on him to be the starter next year, it will be Andre Brown all over again...

we need more passing... you notice in the second half, when we weren't moving the ball, we started running on first downs again inexplicably

run block very well right now. I actually feel like the Oline has taken a big step backwards.

The problem with the Giants O-line situation...is that you have three guys in Pugh, Beatty and Richberg who need to be part of the solution. At this point the Giants can't afford to be giving up on recent draft picks. They need to somehow make this work.

Offense plays strictly to their only strength - passing. The result - 17 points.

That's bad.

scored 17 pts in the first half against one of the best defenses (and Super Bowl Champs) in the NFL. So saying we weren't balanced actually PROVES that balance doesn't work when your run game is shit. The second half we were moving the ball before the Eli INT. Once the game got out of control and we were completely unable to stop the run, it's impossible to judge the offense.

In comment 11969883 AnnapolisMike said:

Quote:

run block very well right now. I actually feel like the Oline has taken a big step backwards. The problem with the Giants O-line situation...is that you have three guys in Pugh, Beatty and Richberg who need to be part of the solution. At this point the Giants can't afford to be giving up on recent draft picks. They need to somehow make this work.

Beatty becomes expendable after next season. They could always draft a road grading RT this year, play him at OG to get his feet wet, then in 2016 kick Pugh over to LT and slide the hypothetical rookie over to RT.

I'm not sure how anyone would want to take a RB in the first. Yeah, Gurley is a beast, but it won't matter without anyone to open the holes. We do not have any physical, nasty, overpowering offensive lineman. Not one. We can't move anyone at the line of scrimmage. The Giants need to rebuild both lines. We've drafted a couple of O lineman high. Pugh is OK, Richberg is decent, but neither of them are very physical. We need some road graters. We also need some playmakers on defense, especially at LB. Our linebackers outside of Beason are practice squad players on good teams. I think the GIants really need to stack up on the O and D lines with some real talent. I think Eli has thrived in the new offense and we have a star in Beckham, but there is no supporting cast.

In comment 11969901 Josh in the City said:

Quote:

scored 17 pts in the first half against one of the best defenses (and Super Bowl Champs) in the NFL. So saying we weren't balanced actually PROVES that balance doesn't work when your run game is shit. The second half we were moving the ball before the Eli INT. Once the game got out of control and we were completely unable to stop the run, it's impossible to judge the offense.

Thank you. We moved the ball better in the first half than at any other time since the disaster at the Linc. So don't tell me play calling doesn't make a difference, it sure as hell does. You have to be willfully blind to fail to see that at this point.

we have to look at things in context.

We can all agree the offense was fine in the first half, so let us concetrate to the 2nd half.

When the score was 17-14. 17-17, and 24-17. We ran the ball 6 times on first down.

5 rushes for 9 yards long of 5.
1 holding penalty.

So thats a total of 6 running plays on first down for -1 yards. Tough to play when you are constantly 2nd and 3rd and long. The game plan changed dramatically from the first half when we were throwing the short quick throws.

they went deep. They went with what worked...until of course everything stopped working 2nd half..

In comment 11969906 GIANTSr01 said:

Quote:

Beatty becomes expendable after next season. They could always draft a road grading RT this year, play him at OG to get his feet wet, then in 2016 kick Pugh over to LT and slide the hypothetical rookie over to RT.

I get that not everyone likes Beatty. But I don't think he is really that much of a problem right now. And there is no reason to really believe that Pugh would be any better at LT. I would like to see Richberg at center. Draft a Guard in the 2nd or 3rd round and hope it comes together.

The Giants have other needs at DE, LB and S. The offensive line was always going to take a few years to come together.

In comment 11969838 superspynyg said:

Quote:

but would anyone be that upset if we took Gurly (which we wont do) with our first pick? I know that other needs are more pressing (OT and DEF) but if the powers that be decided to pick Gurly to pair with Jennings I would not complain one bit.

Yes, I would. He's already has a bit of an injury history, and with his running style, that's the kind of first round pick you just don't know how much you'll get him on the field.

too...

people bashing the D and all that, but they got us 3 turnovers yesterday

and we got what 3 or 7 points of turnovers... the Offense has been shitty... can't run the ball and constantly keep trying... 3rd and long is worse this year than last and i can't believe that was even possible...

In comment 11969810 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

23 of 33 plays in first half were pass plays. 23 of 30 plays in second half were pass plays.

I think they realize they can't make the run plays work no matter how many times they try them so they are deliberately moving away from the balanced theme to more of a passing game and it was better.

In comment 11970383 whobetta said:

Quote:

too... people bashing the D and all that, but they got us 3 turnovers yesterday and we got what 3 or 7 points of turnovers... the Offense has been shitty... can't run the ball and constantly keep trying... 3rd and long is worse this year than last and i can't believe that was even possible...

3 turnovers doesn't come close to negating allowing 350 yards rushing. That's historically bad.

matters more then how much they were passing.

Provide some context for that stat Eric.

So even though they may have thrown the ball more than 70% of the time, a good deal of that was done in obvious (or near-obvious) passing situations.

They had a good balance of running and passing on 1st down in the first half (8 runs, 6 passes) on their way to a 17-14 lead, but they began the second half running the ball 6 of 7 times on 1st and ten with the only pass being the interception. They didn't return to throwing the ball on first down until after they had fallen behind 31-17.

Just stop.

We scored 17 points calling plays with the ratio you people wanted. That's not enough points.

The fact is we are not good enough at the point of attack whether we run or pass. Eli's YPA still sucks.

In comment 11970620 Milton said:

Quote:

So even though they may have thrown the ball more than 70% of the time, a good deal of that was done in obvious (or near-obvious) passing situations.

Yup, in the 2nd half it felt like every 1st down play was a run for nothing.

is doing these days on the practice squad. Hope he's coming along well. He's a nasty SOB and if he pans out, could give the running game that big block up front they desperately need.

listed as an OT, a position I don't think he's ever played. He is an OG.

when you pass is as important as how much you pass. The Giants were passing more often in the 2nd half because they failed miserably on first down to get any yardage running the ball.

And once they fell behind, things got worse.

the ground game is completely ineffective. Unfortunately we just don't have the WRs outside of OBJ.

we are an offense that lacks talent and we are a work in progress. This is what I expected in year 1.

What I did not expect was for Eli to have these numbers. I didn't expect 27 Ints but I didn't expect these numbers, especially seeing this poor talent surrounding him.

We would have scored less than 17 had we tried running more. Not sure where the logic of only 17 with this ration comes from. We did nothing in 2nd half running. All sustained drives were passing. Loved the Ind ratio :)

when are the Giants supposed to run the ball?

They only ran it 10 times in the first half and 7 in the second half.

You want them to run it on 3rd-and-8 instead of 2nd-and-10?

Or are you saying don't run at all?

in a predictable fashion.

It seems to me that Seattle knew that on First down, the Giants were more apt to run the ball in the second half. The question is Why did they know that and if they did know it, why didn't Coughlin figure it out and break tendencies.

Or is this another case of baiting Eli into switching to a run play?

I'm not sure I understand. Again, they only ran the ball seven times in the second half.

Look at first drive that ended with a punt.

Pass for 12 yards.

Run for 4 yards (respectable).

Incomplete pass (terrible pass protection).

Incomplete pass (terrible pass protection).

Punt.

You can say pass more, but the pass protection doesn't really hold up all that well. Eli got hit a lot.

That said, they passed three out of four plays in this game.

they kept running on first down in the second half. Seattle caught on fairly quickly and started clamping down.

Runs of 6 yards, 2 yards, 2 yards, -2 yards, 5 yards, -2 yards on first down.

I didn't have the numbers, but I noticed it with my naked eye in real time. They inexplicably went away from what worked to run, run, run again. Fucking horrible. Balance matters more than wins.

What ur point is with this thread. The Giants looked ok throwing the ball especially in the 1st half. I for one have not been screaming for balance, but to abandon the run game until defenses have to back the eph off to respect our pass game to open up our putrid run game.

Ugh this season sucks.

it was the first down runs that made them predictable.

and no way i want a RB in rounds 1,2 or 3. you can pick them up later. you need to open up some holes.

that's the shit that won us 3 games in a row...then, they went back to that bullshit balancing act. 77% passing in the 2nd half? only because we were down by so much in the 4th.

point of this thread chopper is that the Giants eschewed balance and still only scored 17 points.

I've been advocating throwing more too, but the "let's not run it at all" crowd needs to realize that the OL is making hard to pass and run.

Cane...again, the Giants ran it three times less in the second half.

There were five possessions in the second half. What stopped those possessions?

1st drive...Richburg holding penalty followed by three straight passes.

2nd drive...interception on 1st-and-10. (Maybe a run would have been safer?)

3rd drive... -2 yard run followed by an incomplete pass and a sack. So both run and pass failed here.

4th drive...four straight incomplete passes.

5th drive...Eli lost the ball out of his hand.

It's a complete fabrication to say that somehow running the ball seven times in the second half was a problem. At most, you can point to the 3rd drive, but that's stretching it too.

Not true at all.

Five drives.

1st we were ahead.

2nd we were tied.

3rd we were down by one score.

We only fell behind in the 4th quarter and only had two more drives down by 14 or more.

We're talking about WHEN the Giants were running the ball, First down, not the number of attempts.

I know that, but the only drive in the second half where the Giants had 1st-and-10, ran the ball, and then the drive stalled was the the third drive.

The other four drives didn't stall with a 1st-and-10 followed by a run (good or bad).

Here are all the 1st and 10 plays--beginning with the Giants first possession of the second half and ending with the Giants last possession before they fell behind 31-17 in the 4th quarter...

1st and 10 at NYG 10 (12:04) A.Williams left end to NYG 16 for 6 yards (E.Thomas).
1st and 10 at NYG 37 (10:51) A.Williams left guard to NYG 39 for 2 yards (T.McDaniel).
1st and 10 at SEA 46 (10:03) (Shotgun) A.Williams up the middle to SEA 44 for 2 yards (J.Johnson). PENALTY on NYG-W.Richburg, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at SEA 46 - No Play.
1st and 10 at NYG 20 (4:13) (Shotgun) A.Williams up the middle to NYG 18 for -2 yards (M.Bennett).
1st and 10 at NYG 46 (2:35) A.Williams right tackle to SEA 49 for 5 yards (K.Pierre-Louis).
1st and 10 at SEA 39 (:57) (Shotgun) E.Manning pass deep right intended for O.Beckham INTERCEPTED by E.Thomas at SEA -5.
1st and 10 at NYG 19 (12:42) A.Williams left tackle to NYG 17 for -2 yards (B.Irvin).

Please, if they had that distribution in earlier games in losing streak, might be still in it

and the Giants moved the chains on all of those except the third drive.

So you are saying the Giants run attempts were a bad idea even when they moved the chains?

There was only one series that ended with a running play after a fresh set of downs.

I think they should have passed more in some of the losses, but in Philly, it didn't matter. Eli got killed in that game.

It might have helped against Dallas and the Colts.

They were able to maintain possession, but it impacted their ability to be aggressive on second and third downs. Instead of attacking deep, they were reduced to moving the chains and the Giants offensive line isn't built to sustain drives which only move the chains ten yards at a time.

Of course the one time they chose to throw on first down--and go deep--it was intercepted.

In any case, I don't want to belabor the point (who's to say the results would've been any better if they mixed it up more on first downs), it just seemed to me at the time that the Giants weren't being aggressive enough on first down in the second half while the game was close.

The play that really pissed me off was when they punted on 4th and 4 from the Seattle 40.

Ehh...I think you're reaching to try to fit a narrative.

The Giants ran Williams for no gain on the play before the 44 yard pass to Beckham.

The run game - one way or the other - did not cost the Giants the game in the second half. They only ran it 7 times and the timing of the runs wasn't an issue either.

I have no problem with Eli taking a deep shot on 1st-and-10 from the 39 yard line.

But in hindsight, someone could say, "Why were they playing it so aggressive there?"

the truth of the matter is that Eli and Beckham cooled off in the second half...as did Parker somewhat.

The Giants did get boned by two non-calls on Randle.

The Richburg penalty also hurt us.

In comment 11971700 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

Ehh...I think you're reaching to try to fit a narrative. The Giants ran Williams for no gain on the play before the 44 yard pass to Beckham. The run game - one way or the other - did not cost the Giants the game in the second half. They only ran it 7 times and the timing of the runs wasn't an issue either.

That was in the first half on the way to building their 17-14 lead. They mixed it up on first down pretty well in the first half. It was in the second half that they got all conservative on first down (until they were down by two TD's). But like I said, the one time they got aggressive it resulted in the turnover, so who is to say.

I can't see how someone says the Giants got more conservative in the second half when they ran the ball less in the second half.

The comeback to that argument was that the Giants got conservative by running the ball on 1st down. Well, teams tend to run the ball on 1st or 2nd down.

But even in this instance, again, after a fresh set of downs, only one drive stalled after a 1st down run.

The facts simply don't match up with your argument.

And contrary to what some have posted in this thread, the Giants didn't just become pass-happy once they fell "way behind".

They had 30 second half offensive plays and threw it 23 times.

Two drives ended with turnovers on 1st-and-10. Another ended after 1st-and-10 and four straight passes. The Richburg holding penalty screwed up a promising series that ended with three straight passes.

Did the Giants become "conservative" because the third drive began with a run, then an incomplete pass, and a sack? I have a hard time accepting that argument.

but we're running a modified WCO. I've always thought that WCO's used short 3-5 step drops and rhythm passes to the RB/TE/WR as much of their "running game".

What I don't understand is why we insist on "power" runs (dives/off tackle) instead of misdirection and toss sweeps, I think Williams could be effective doing that. And Eli needs to trust him to catch the ball...you need your RB to do that in this offense, and the coaches need to "coach him up" for that.

Lastly, why is Eli not better at ball fakes? Effective play action is vital in a WCO, and I know he's able to do effective ball fakes...he was great at this when he was a rookie. Under Gilbride, he's never honed this part of his game, and it's made it harder for him to complete passes.

its a passing league. You can run all you like - only the Cowboys are actually benefiting from that right now. Yards per play, even on adjusted basis (ie turnovers) strongly favors passing over running. Of course, as DEP alluded to earlier you have to factor in that you are more likely to commit offensive penalty on run play than pass....

Seahawks don't even run any more... unless of course you count putting their franchise QB at risk 15 times a game for no apparent reason whatsoever. Maybe I'm just slow, but that's going to catch up to them. How's that working out for RG3?