So far, teams are wisely playing their safeties deep to prevent OBJ from torching them and are forcing the Giants to run the ball or dink and dunk. So far that has worked so with the Giants only scoring 29 points on offense in two games. The Giants have averaged 2 turnovers per game which is only a little bit above the league average last year of about 1.5 (see https://www.teamrankings.com) so that alone doesn't explain the low points scored.
The two ways of beating two deep safeties that I know of are a great run game or a TE who will make teams pay down the seam. The Giants have neither.
Other than being near flawless in the short passing game, how else can the Giants offense make teams pay for playing 2 deep safeties?
We have seen both Donnell and Tye catch deep passes - the offense just does not call for it
There is nothing wrong with taking what the D gives you. Remember, 2 drops on TD passes, 2 fumbles deep in NO territory and a missed FG. The offense is moving the ball
Reminded me of super bowl 46, where the Pats took away the deep threats, forcing us to dink and dunk. Of course, we had a much better OL and running game back then
1) Why didn't the Giants offense score more points against the Cowboys?
2) Why didn't the Giants offense score more points against the Saints?
The answer to the second question is absolutely due to:
- Donnell dropping a TD (and then their failing on 4th down)
- The offense turning the ball over three (other) times
- Josh Brown missing a field goal
The answer to the first question is partly due to the Cowboys dominating TOP 37 to 23.
The Giants' offense gained over 300 yards against the Cowboys and over 400 yards against the Saints. They're moving the ball, but not finishing drives with TDs as much as we thought and hoped, largely due to mistakes more than lacking deep plays.
Yes, I'd love to have a good TE on the roster and an effective running game to beat 2-deep looks. But I don't think that's the critical reason that the Giants offense hasn't scored more the first two weeks. I think execution mistakes have been a bigger part of it.
This. It doesn't matter if it's a TE or a good WR who runs the seam.
The deep safeties weren't the problem.
Thats the point chris r is touching on, and its a legit question. When u are forced to dink n dunk down the field you WILL make more mistakes because u have to execute so many plays perfectly
The answer is, you must run the ball against 2-deep, and if u cant its always gonna b a grind. No big scoring plays + lots of mistakes
I don't trust the pass protection enough to send four deep.
Oakland Raiders on the road put up 35 points against the Saints. Our offense scored 9? I am glad we won, it was earned overall but the offense right now is very unreliable. I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they will improve but for now it's very poor.
I'm not remotely worried about the deep passing game.
This has all the looks of a 4,000 yarder to me.
Won't matter if the Giants can run or not, or if the TE can work the seam.
As long as Eli has time to throw, the Giants will get their points.
In that vein, I really liked the way Eli played on Sunday: lots of precise, high-percentage passes, with enough shots downfield to keep the underneath stuff open. Even his one turnover was easy to forgive (though I didn't see enough evidence for a clear reversal). Some of the other guys need to be more consistent and make the plays that are there to be made - notably Cruz, Beckham and Donnell. And yes, if the running game doesn't improve, Eli will be forced to carry the offense the way he did in 2011. At least the defense appears able to provide a fair amount of help.
Reminded me of super bowl 46, where the Pats took away the deep threats, forcing us to dink and dunk. Of course, we had a much better OL and running game back then
Again, 29 points in 2 games with a non outlandish 2 TOs per game.
Quote:
We likely score at least 10, if not 17 or more extra pts yesterday...and suddenly it's closer to a 31-13 win. Need to clean that shit up.
Reminded me of super bowl 46, where the Pats took away the deep threats, forcing us to dink and dunk. Of course, we had a much better OL and running game back then
Again, 29 points in 2 games with a non outlandish 2 TOs per game.
It wasn't "2 turnovers per game." It was 1 turnover in the overall context of the Cowboys game and 3 turnovers (plus a turnover on downs) in the overall context of the Saints game.
Quote:
In comment 13130634 mfsd said:
Quote:
We likely score at least 10, if not 17 or more extra pts yesterday...and suddenly it's closer to a 31-13 win. Need to clean that shit up.
Reminded me of super bowl 46, where the Pats took away the deep threats, forcing us to dink and dunk. Of course, we had a much better OL and running game back then
Again, 29 points in 2 games with a non outlandish 2 TOs per game.
It wasn't "2 turnovers per game." It was 1 turnover in the overall context of the Cowboys game and 3 turnovers (plus a turnover on downs) in the overall context of the Saints game.
You don't seem to understand averages. But I'll humor you - have the Giants played well offensively?
That would seem to be the way to go against our offense, the lack of respect of the running game is justified.
Quote:
In comment 13130797 chris r said:
Quote:
In comment 13130634 mfsd said:
Quote:
We likely score at least 10, if not 17 or more extra pts yesterday...and suddenly it's closer to a 31-13 win. Need to clean that shit up.
Reminded me of super bowl 46, where the Pats took away the deep threats, forcing us to dink and dunk. Of course, we had a much better OL and running game back then
Again, 29 points in 2 games with a non outlandish 2 TOs per game.
It wasn't "2 turnovers per game." It was 1 turnover in the overall context of the Cowboys game and 3 turnovers (plus a turnover on downs) in the overall context of the Saints game.
You don't seem to understand averages. But I'll humor you - have the Giants played well offensively?
You don't seem to understand applying averages appropriately in an analysis.
And your follow-up question attempts to change the subject. You should be able to glean my answer to that question from my first post on this thread.
Based on their output, yes, they have played well. Yesterday, Eli was 32-41 for 368 yards yesterday and in Week 1 he had 3 TD's.
I'm sure this is going to be your new common retort like "How should we not bitch about the GM since we've sucked the past three years" in your zest to find whatever the fuck you can to be contrarian, but thinking the offense hasn't played well just illustrates another example of being Sideshow Bob instead of bringing any meaningful football discussion to the board.
It has to be really shitty for many of you to have to find things to bitch about.
Against the Cowboys, absolutely. They had the ball for 23 minutes and scored 20 points. They were 10 of 17 on 3rd down conversions (58%). They made three trips inside the red zone and came away with three touchdowns. And when they needed to run the ball to eat up some clock, they did.
Against the Saints, the bag was a little more mixed. Eli was outstanding, but several times his TE and his WRs let him down. 32 of 41 with seven drops - seven - is unreal. They did have trouble running the ball, but when they had to, they were able to move the ball through the air to set up the game-winning field goal.
2 - 1st, @own 17, 14 plays for 80y, 6:20, turnover on downs
3 - 1st, @own 33, 6 plays for 30y, 2:02, Fumble @ Saints 37
4 - 2nd, @own 13, 5 plays for 67y, Fumble @Saints 16
5 - 2nd, @own 20, 6 plays for 6y, Fumble @own 25
6 - 2nd, one play kneeldown at end of half
7 - 3rd, @own 25 8plays for 40y, Missed FG
8 - 3rd @own 16, 11 plays for 54y, Field Goal
9 - 4th, @own 25, 11 plays for 74y, Field Goal
10 - 4th, @own 20, 3 plays for 7y, Punt
11 - 4th, @own 25, 11 plays for 70y, Field Goal
So, out of 10 actual drives (excluding the end of the first half), the Giants should have had a chance to score in 7 of them, and only went 3 and out twice.
How else would anyone determine what 3+1÷2 is?
Quote:
You don't seem to understand averages. But I'll humor you - have the Giants played well offensively?
Based on their output, yes, they have played well. Yesterday, Eli was 32-41 for 368 yards yesterday and in Week 1 he had 3 TD's.
I'm sure this is going to be your new common retort like "How should we not bitch about the GM since we've sucked the past three years" in your zest to find whatever the fuck you can to be contrarian, but thinking the offense hasn't played well just illustrates another example of being Sideshow Bob instead of bringing any meaningful football discussion to the board.
It has to be really shitty for many of you to have to find things to bitch about.
Funny thing is.....didn't have a good running game and same TE's as last year, but some how we were able to stretch the field....hmmmm
Stick to "Source" Ace.
Our TE need to be able to beat LB in coverage, but presuming they can't you still have a RB being covered by a LB.
This is why Vereen is so valuable - there shouldn't be many (or mostly any) defenses that can cover Vereen in space one-on-one. Getting him in space gives him a lot of opportunities underneath if defenses keep two safeties deep.
Also, when two safeties cover deep there are opportunities for one of three WR to have man coverage. Between Shep, Cruz, and OBJ, we have to win those matchups. Thankfully Eli is very good at recognizing coverages and can find the open man. I haven't rewatched the game from the all-22 angle yet to really see what the defenses were doing, but if they were really keeping two deep that would explain why there were so many opportunities for our WR, especially underneath, and especially early on.
My suspicion is that they did play to take away the deeper routes early on, which is why OBJ and SS had so many underneath completions. Later they may have started watching for the underneath routes, especially across the middle as SS was completing several receptions across the middle. As the safeties cheated that direction Eli noticed and went deep along the sidelines to OBJ and Cruz on the final drive.