What's amazing is that they do it mostly with a four man rush. They have an astonishing 22 sacks in the last three games. Lets see how they do going against two vastly superior olines the next two game.
Hankins is 5th in the league among DT's with 7.0. Noteworthy since he's often been on the sidelines when they go Nascar. He's a very big man but he gets there with quicks more often than bull rushing. Should be considered for the Pro Bowl.
Quote:
Same thing with the Seahawks - the defense held them to 17 points going into the 4th quarter. But the offense didn't score a single point in the entire 2nd half of that game. Zero second half points. And that game effectively ended the season for the Giants.
So it was the zero second half points that did them in, not the 250 yards rushing they gave up? Give me a break.
In both Dallas games, had the defense made a stop when the game was on the line, the Giants had a chance to win. They didn't.
I'll give you the Philly and San Fran games, where both offense and defense did poorly, but the defense gave up 31 to Dallas twice, 40 to the Colts and 25 to the worst offense in the league, the Jags. Those are not offensive issues.
I don't disagree with your post, but to be fair the offense let up 14 of the points against Jacksonville (two fumbles for TDs). The defense did let up the game winning FG drive, but only allowed 11 points.
STL is now eliminated, and have nothing to play for, so it won't be the "test" I hoped it would be...they have only won one more game than us, and their offense is nothing to write about....if their defensive line comes to play, they will give our OL something to play for....
Then we are the last team that should get credit for garbage time stats as we are rarely ahead and the other team is forced to pass. Then all the good teams like the Broncos would have nothing but garbage time stats.
Err, I missed the blowup. Seriously?
the point is if you get x% of your sacks in 3 games vs shit opponents it is less of an indicator on how you blitz or your DL than if you average 3 sacks EVERY GAME no matter who the opponent is...
getting 6 sacks in one game vs dook and then 0 vs an opponent you HAD to have a couple sacks against makes the TOTAL number less sexy
1-2 record?
Anyway..
Ha! Damn my dyslexia. Anyway, yeah, I am not too impressed with a 2-1 record plus generally looking like crap defensively for much of the game yesterday.
Quote:
Same thing with the Seahawks - the defense held them to 17 points going into the 4th quarter. But the offense didn't score a single point in the entire 2nd half of that game. Zero second half points. And that game effectively ended the season for the Giants.
So it was the zero second half points that did them in, not the 250 yards rushing they gave up? Give me a break.
In both Dallas games, had the defense made a stop when the game was on the line, the Giants had a chance to win. They didn't.
I'll give you the Philly and San Fran games, where both offense and defense did poorly, but the defense gave up 31 to Dallas twice, 40 to the Colts and 25 to the worst offense in the league, the Jags. Those are not offensive issues.
YES. When the team doesn't score a single point in an entire half of football, that's usually the biggest contributing factor in a loss. You can't win if you don't score points.
The Giants giving up 31 is not as concerning to me than them only scoring 21 points against Dallas' defense, especially with one of their three scores having to come after an INT that gave them the ball inside the Dallas 30 in that game.
I think everyone expected the Colts to put up about 30 points in that game - they were the #1 ranked offense. Giving up 40 is inexcusable, but the effort by the offense in that game was even more inexcusable. Only 3 first half points, and a total of just 10 point going into the 4th quarter. Stat sheet shows they only converted 4 out of 16 3rd downs. Awful.
And nothing really needs to be said about the performance by the offense against the Eagles.
Quote:
In comment 12035644 eclipz928 said:
Quote:
Same thing with the Seahawks - the defense held them to 17 points going into the 4th quarter. But the offense didn't score a single point in the entire 2nd half of that game. Zero second half points. And that game effectively ended the season for the Giants.
So it was the zero second half points that did them in, not the 250 yards rushing they gave up? Give me a break.
In both Dallas games, had the defense made a stop when the game was on the line, the Giants had a chance to win. They didn't.
I'll give you the Philly and San Fran games, where both offense and defense did poorly, but the defense gave up 31 to Dallas twice, 40 to the Colts and 25 to the worst offense in the league, the Jags. Those are not offensive issues.
YES. When the team doesn't score a single point in an entire half of football, that's usually the biggest contributing factor in a loss. You can't win if you don't score points.
The Giants giving up 31 is not as concerning to me than them only scoring 21 points against Dallas' defense, especially with one of their three scores having to come after an INT that gave them the ball inside the Dallas 30 in that game.
I think everyone expected the Colts to put up about 30 points in that game - they were the #1 ranked offense. Giving up 40 is inexcusable, but the effort by the offense in that game was even more inexcusable. Only 3 first half points, and a total of just 10 point going into the 4th quarter. Stat sheet shows they only converted 4 out of 16 3rd downs. Awful.
And nothing really needs to be said about the performance by the offense against the Eagles.
And I'm pretty sure you can't score points if you don't have the ball very much, which is what giving up 250 yards will do. Regardless, neither side of the ball has operated great this year. In my opinion, the defense needs more fixing and fixing it will lead to better results.
Remember, the Giants will have Cruz back next year, and we are all hoping Reese gets some help on the OL. No one is saying its perfect.
paid coaches and none have
job offers.
Give the DL credit for working through blocks, but I see a bunch of plays where the QB pulls down the ball when his first read isn't there.
our earlier schedule contained mostly good teams. So if our sack numbers the last three weeks were inflated, the earlier numbers were lower than they would have been against average teams. [/quote]
Good point. When some fans decry the recent opposition, they ignore how tough the early schedule was. Things usually even out over the full 16 games & that is why the total of 41 sacks is impressive. However, I still wince at the 9 secs Romo got. We have to improve our "D."