but I was looking at the rushing totals from around the league and noticed that there were a ton of 1 carry runs that lifted the overall averages. You'd see a guy with one carry go for 20 or 30 yards (most likely with some of them an end around) so an average of say 2.5-3 suddenly became over 4..Or Kaepernick rushing for close to 100 yards..Even Forte had 100 yards but on 30 carries(which consumes time, I get that)..
No getting around the stat you point out Marty, as we've been quite inept there. But a close look at most teams stats, belies how good or bad their rushing games are, imo..Ours is terrible right now and hopefully some creative PC can help mitigate that, or it simply improves with time. Hopefully Perkins is deemed ready to get much more of the load
refresh my memory but did I hear this right? when interviewed at half time the reporter asked Macadoo how his team is going to get the running game get going better (or something like that). I believe he said "we need more attempts" did anyone else hear it that way? we don't need more attempts. the better response - the line needs to block better. he needs to get his linemen pissed off. I hate the fact we seem to start every series 2nd and 9 because we just have to assume that we will run for one yard on first down.
ROK. I remember that game and 'Club 13'. Parcells was a coach who
could take something bad and invent 'Club 13' to spur the o-line to work harder. He really knew what buttons to push.
BB'56. I understand your point: Just one good run can make a big difference in the rushing stats, but not mean very much in terms of the overall quality of a team's rushing ability.
I'm hoping that in our next game we can achieve inconsistency instead of uniformly bad rushing. Where "inconsistency" means a few 10-20 yard carries sprinkled amongst the 2 yard gains. ;-)
LT one armed game vs. the Saints in 1988, the Giants rushed for 14 yards on 17 carries in the Superdome. They won thanks to 2 long passes to Stephen Baker, including an 85 yard TD from Hoss.
But teams have run from 1-2-2 (RB-TE-WR) plenty. The blocking scheme seems more like a power run scheme. This line is more finesse run blocking and should commit to zone schemes that involve double teams and cut backs.
RE: ROK. I remember that game and 'Club 13'. Parcells was a coach who
could take something bad and invent 'Club 13' to spur the o-line to work harder. He really knew what buttons to push.
BB'56. I understand your point: Just one good run can make a big difference in the rushing stats, but not mean very much in terms of the overall quality of a team's rushing ability.
I'm hoping that in our next game we can achieve inconsistency instead of uniformly bad rushing. Where "inconsistency" means a few 10-20 yard carries sprinkled amongst the 2 yard gains. ;-)
Agreed
Perhaps aback with more speed to hit he hole before it closes
maybe like...the Rams run D is one of the best in the league? Ever think of that? We've run the ball pretty well at times this season.
Should we have selective memory with every issue this team has?
Really? What game was it that they've run the ball well? I can think of MAYBE the Redskins game, which was still mediocre as far as running the ball. Otherwise they've been downright anemic.
Remember the game where McConkey recovered the opening KO for a TD? 1984 at LA. The Rams scored 33 unanswered points en route to a 33-12 win. The Giants ran 13 times for eight yards.
In 1989, the Giants returned to LA and were blown out again, 31-10. rushing for six yards on ten carries.
Not 20+ attempts, but still memorable in their own sickening way.
is that in the second half of the opener vs Dallas our run game looked amazing. I thought the preseason woes were behind us and this team would be able to run. Man, was I wrong.
...where the Giant QB took a knee at the end, adding to the carries and subtracting yardage.
A couple of losses from the latter half of the Coughlin era stand out for futility on the ground: the Vince Young fiasco in 2011 (17 carries for 29 yards) and the loss to Denver in 2013 (19-23). Those games featured memorable breakdowns in other areas, but both were winnable with any sort of running game.
some sort of running game that isn't out of the shotgun? It's really something I would have never thought I'd see out of a Giants team. No FB or blocking TE- what a joke. Even some singleback 3 WR sets. I hate only running plays out of the shotgun the entire game.
we can't run any runs out of a formation that would actually benefit the runner.
instead, as has been beaten to death here by myself and others, we essentially have a running play repertoire of...1. teams are pretty well aware that the shotgun draw is our one running play.
can't run anything out of an I if we lack the personnel. it's pretty tough to watch actually. when's the last time we ran off-tackle? 2014?
much is made in re: to passing of 'a QB getting through his reads'
and, ok, it is nice when everyone knows its a pass and the play works anyway. which seems like our bread and butter these days when we win.
Its also nice when runs work.
BUT, as noted above in this thread: it seems that we lack a variety of run plays and lack realistic play action or even lack a variety of just plays that at snap could be either.
But, we DO have a viable fullback who can run routes and catch passes as well, and probably block for runs just fine,
-if we take the time to practice with him at it- :
Will Tye.
And we could always use Beatty (one assumes) as a power run formation TE.
SO, with QB under center, Tye as fullback, Perkins at RB and even Beatty (who, ok, may not be a threat as a receiver at all) at TE, you get power running (again, if we take the time to practice at it) and a max protection option as well.
You would STILL HAVE 4 proven and viable options to receive (ODB, Shep, Tye, Perkins) and a viable power running formation at the same time.
WHY insist on a 5th receiving option, or 3rd WR, when Manning probably NEVER gets to his '5th read' in this quick pass offense and the OLs current state ANYWAY?
What you -loose- in the 3rd pure WR you might -gain- by having a really viable dual possibility run/pass formation for once,
along with doubling the size of the usable portion of the playbook as well, especially with regards to the types of runs we are likely to run, thus types of play action passes, and so forth and so on.
what I suggested above gives you
1- the short (power runs, end runs with FB and big TE, counters, QB counters),
2- the medium (dump offs to Tye or Perkins or wheel routes what have you)
3- deep medium (shep) and
4- the long (becks), if the safeties creep up, you still can use up to 3 additional pass protectors, the line (5) plus two 'backs' and beattly at TE, which makes 8 pass protectors.
maybe like...the Rams run D is one of the best in the league? Ever think of that? We've run the ball pretty well at times this season.
Should we have selective memory with every issue this team has?
Exactly. The last four teams we've played have + run defenses. The Rams actually were the worst of the bunch, they're the 15th best run defense (in ypg). Packers, Vikings, and Ravens are 3 of the top 4.
But, if there's any possible crevice for the negative douches to wiggle in, they'll wiggle themselves in it.
Parcells nicknamed the O-line "Club 13" after that.
No getting around the stat you point out Marty, as we've been quite inept there. But a close look at most teams stats, belies how good or bad their rushing games are, imo..Ours is terrible right now and hopefully some creative PC can help mitigate that, or it simply improves with time. Hopefully Perkins is deemed ready to get much more of the load
If we had a FB and a 2TE set maybe we'd be a little better...
But, yea, then we'd need a FB and TE (at least 1) who can block...
Should we have selective memory with every issue this team has?
BB'56. I understand your point: Just one good run can make a big difference in the rushing stats, but not mean very much in terms of the overall quality of a team's rushing ability.
I'm hoping that in our next game we can achieve inconsistency instead of uniformly bad rushing. Where "inconsistency" means a few 10-20 yard carries sprinkled amongst the 2 yard gains. ;-)
BB'56. I understand your point: Just one good run can make a big difference in the rushing stats, but not mean very much in terms of the overall quality of a team's rushing ability.
I'm hoping that in our next game we can achieve inconsistency instead of uniformly bad rushing. Where "inconsistency" means a few 10-20 yard carries sprinkled amongst the 2 yard gains. ;-)
Agreed
1999 vs Tampa Bay: 25 Carries, 28 Yards (1.12)
1999 vs Tampa Bay: 25 Carries, 28 Yards (1.12)
Also, Giants WON both games.
Should we have selective memory with every issue this team has?
Really? What game was it that they've run the ball well? I can think of MAYBE the Redskins game, which was still mediocre as far as running the ball. Otherwise they've been downright anemic.
How many 1st down 2 yard or less runs were there yesterday?
In 1989, the Giants returned to LA and were blown out again, 31-10. rushing for six yards on ten carries.
Not 20+ attempts, but still memorable in their own sickening way.
A couple of losses from the latter half of the Coughlin era stand out for futility on the ground: the Vince Young fiasco in 2011 (17 carries for 29 yards) and the loss to Denver in 2013 (19-23). Those games featured memorable breakdowns in other areas, but both were winnable with any sort of running game.
instead, as has been beaten to death here by myself and others, we essentially have a running play repertoire of...1. teams are pretty well aware that the shotgun draw is our one running play.
can't run anything out of an I if we lack the personnel. it's pretty tough to watch actually. when's the last time we ran off-tackle? 2014?
Its also nice when runs work.
BUT, as noted above in this thread: it seems that we lack a variety of run plays and lack realistic play action or even lack a variety of just plays that at snap could be either.
But, we DO have a viable fullback who can run routes and catch passes as well, and probably block for runs just fine,
-if we take the time to practice with him at it- :
Will Tye.
And we could always use Beatty (one assumes) as a power run formation TE.
SO, with QB under center, Tye as fullback, Perkins at RB and even Beatty (who, ok, may not be a threat as a receiver at all) at TE, you get power running (again, if we take the time to practice at it) and a max protection option as well.
You would STILL HAVE 4 proven and viable options to receive (ODB, Shep, Tye, Perkins) and a viable power running formation at the same time.
WHY insist on a 5th receiving option, or 3rd WR, when Manning probably NEVER gets to his '5th read' in this quick pass offense and the OLs current state ANYWAY?
What you -loose- in the 3rd pure WR you might -gain- by having a really viable dual possibility run/pass formation for once,
along with doubling the size of the usable portion of the playbook as well, especially with regards to the types of runs we are likely to run, thus types of play action passes, and so forth and so on.
1- the short (power runs, end runs with FB and big TE, counters, QB counters),
2- the medium (dump offs to Tye or Perkins or wheel routes what have you)
3- deep medium (shep) and
4- the long (becks), if the safeties creep up, you still can use up to 3 additional pass protectors, the line (5) plus two 'backs' and beattly at TE, which makes 8 pass protectors.
Should we have selective memory with every issue this team has?
Exactly. The last four teams we've played have + run defenses. The Rams actually were the worst of the bunch, they're the 15th best run defense (in ypg). Packers, Vikings, and Ravens are 3 of the top 4.
But, if there's any possible crevice for the negative douches to wiggle in, they'll wiggle themselves in it.