The loss of a football game is seldom due to any one play or factor. However it became obvious to me upon examination of the game statistics that the main reason the Giants lost was that they were pinned back near their goal line when they began most of their possessions.
The Giants had 10 possessions, on: 5 kickoffs and 5 punts. They received the ball on average 15.4 yards from their own goal line. To break it down further, if you remove the 3 touchbacks, each of which gave them possession on their 25 yard line, they started their possessions on average 11.3 yards from their goal line.
They broke this pattern only once, when Harris ran back a kickoff 47 yards, but that was erased by a penalty, leaving New York on their 11-yard line.
On another kickoff, the ball went 5 yards into the end zone and was returned to the 14-yard line. You might consider that unwise, but it happened on the Giant’s last possession and the kick returner was probably desperate to “break one.”
The average Giant position after 5 Cowboy punts was their own 10-yard line.
There is even more to this pattern but I do not want to overwhelm you with numbers.
I was unable to find out what an NFL team’s chance of scoring is if its average ball possession begins near its fifteen-yard line, but it must be very low. Does anyone know?
Those of you who blame McAdoo for being too conservative on his play calling should reconsider. No coach wants to take chances deep in his own team’s territory, especially in the first half when the Giant field position was at its worst. The need to be conservative was also undoubtedly a factor in the Cowboy’s dominance in time of possession, which accounted for the Giant’s defense looking exhausted by the end of the second quarter.
If you wish to blame Manning instead of McAdoo, you also ought to consider that he went 28/39 on his passes, a 72% completion rate, which is usually considered outstanding.
We need to give the Cowboys credit for their flawless kicking that pinned the Giants down near their goal the entire game. I do not expect the Lions to be able duplicate that, so we should get a better idea on Monday night of how good or bad the Giant offense is.
Until then, I think we ought to give the Giants the benefit of a doubt.
We lost because the offense stunk. Not because of where they started their drives.
There's no doubt the offense isn't working.
Mike, I tried to do a serious analysis. It would be helpful if readers at least would try to understand the underlying problems. Some bloggers are serious and put in time in order to inform others.
They lost because McAdoo sucked at his job. Without OBJ he's helpless.
It is. Clearly some thought went into this, but somewhere on the Chinese restaurant menu there are plays that take field position, down and distance, time remaining, etc. into account.
They have plays designed to get out of a hole. Those plays aren't working.
If he had ruled the other way, Dallas would have had to start on their own 1 foot line.
And you're right, we were starting almost every single drive around our own 10 yard line which really makes it difficult to put points on the board. But, that's not what the main problem was.
The main problem was that we were utterly incapable of moving the football.
Even if we had moved between the 20's but kept stalling and failing to score TD's - it would be frustrating, but you'd say alright - we've just got to find a way to cap these drives off and get the ball in the endzone.
We couldn't even get 1st downs. We got 2 the entire first half. That's a joke. It doesn't matter if you start at the 10 or the 40. You can't keep going 3 and out and punting the ball right back.
The field position issue was BECAUSE the offense was so inept at changing it. The offense wasn't inept because of poor field position. Big, and important distinction.
Possessions are much more important now than field position.
However, the Giants didn't make those completions, couldn't flip the field position, and suddenly it was 1984 again. Or maybe 1954.
D wasn't flawless but played great. You hope for more pressure, TOs, 3&outs. But after 3-3-5-4-3 plays per drive, 1:44, 1:02 first 2 & an 0:22 5th drive, can we fairly expect more? 1TD, 3pts after half...a clear sign of the importance of FP...but also how when the O did anything DAL didn't score
Tho stats aren't everything, the 2 I read here: 8-0 when holding opponents to <20 b4 sun and 7 straight <20 scoring games (while the next worst team has just 2 was it?). A decent sample size and pretty incriminating
Way too early season to panic because a healthy OBJ, OL clicking, Eli catching fire we've seen it b4 (hell KC & Smith just had a huge O upswing, 3-90yd drives vs NE after 1 all last season?). But after so many games if not 2-3 seasons, it's fair to question.
That said, an adept OL should be able to get out of the whole at least once or twice in 5-10 opportunities and pick up a couple of consecutive first downs, and I can only remember the early first from the 3, then cluster fail.
What we saw Sunday night wasn't much different from what we say preseason, an O that struggles, regardless of 'string' because of OL that struggles.
And you're right, we were starting almost every single drive around our own 10 yard line which really makes it difficult to put points on the board. But, that's not what the main problem was.
The main problem was that we were utterly incapable of moving the football.
Even if we had moved between the 20's but kept stalling and failing to score TD's - it would be frustrating, but you'd say alright - we've just got to find a way to cap these drives off and get the ball in the endzone.
We couldn't even get 1st downs. We got 2 the entire first half. That's a joke. It doesn't matter if you start at the 10 or the 40. You can't keep going 3 and out and punting the ball right back.
The field position issue was BECAUSE the offense was so inept at changing it. The offense wasn't inept because of poor field position. Big, and important distinction.
I just wanted to highlight another factor. And who knows, lady luck and a near-sighted lineman might shine on the Giants Monday night.
The reason your team lost is because of all the 3 an outs, The cowboys style of play goes back to Jimmy Johnson except he had a better defense in the 90s, but the ideal is to play "smash mouth football and run the ball down your opponents throat and this set's up the play action when you commit 8 men in the box to stopping the run,
But yeah it's all about time of possession and field position does play a part in that, but mostly you want to impose your will on other team's defense by wearing them down and mke the other teams high powered quick strike offense be spectators, It's like you know what's coming next but can you stop it?
The offense as a whole was just pathetic all night long. You can blame everyone, not just the line.
But that over , let's move on to Detroit!
Eveidence after driving down the field first and goal at the six yard line to start the second half. They totally imploded when a touchdown would have changed the complexion of that game dramatically. It almost reminded you of an up and coming team learning how to win against an established big dog and the outcome was predictable. They couldn't put into the end zone because the moment was too big for them. That was a disturbing set of events. That is the Giant offense we have right now.
The turnover differential (the pick) was pretty much meaningless because the game was essentially over at that point .
A rule of thumb that line-setters and gamblers utilize was again validated Sun night. The most important single stat in professional football is yards per passing attempt . A one-yard differential generally connotes a seven-point spread . Dak: 6.9. Eli 5.8. That and the difference in third-down conversion % dictated a blow out . And blow out it was. Like a 1990 Giant blow out.
It just seems to me the more plays you run on any given drive the higher the probability of making mistakes or turning the ball over. Not that ball control is a bad thing it's just that seems to be the main focus of his offense. Completion rate. How about points per game. McAdoo's offense is a dink and dunk slog down the field and it just seems defenses have it figured out.
Field position was a part of the problem. So basically the Dallas Kicker and punter did their job.
I would say the Giant offense still had way more to do with the loss in that between Eli not setting his feet, the line missing stunts and twists, strange play calling and abandoning the run, missing your best player.....they all contributed to the loss.
There is never one reason why a team win or lost a game but yes field position can change a mindset and if the right play isn't called or a great play isn't made you will have a hard time moving the chains.
you didn't see what you wanted to see and you are ready to indict the most obvious victims you can find
The OP lasered onto a key problem on Sunday Night. It is the very difference between most games played last year and the first game this year. McAdoo plays a field position game. It is a critical part of his game management strategy. The Giants lost the field position element of his game on Sunday Night -- belittle it all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the entire offense was off balance.
The other small thing that occurred - which I think made a huge difference Sunday Night was the first offensive set of the Cowboys. That should have been a three and out - Zeke had been stopped before the first down marker on that third down play - but the Cowboys received an incredibly generous spot by the refs - for a first down. I think that play, if marked right and then gave the resulting punt, would have placed the Giants in great field position - and set the table for an entirely different outcome.
Correspondingly the Cowboys' field position off of the Giants punting game gave them outstanding field position throughout the first half.
It was different in the second half -- and the Cowboys only scored three points -- Coincidence? I think not.
With that said what more could you really expect from the defense when you add into it the Giants had only two first downs the entire first half. Sure Dallas moved the ball but you never got the sense they could put into the end zone against the defense. Finally after a terrible pass interference call late in the half after the defense busted its ass to keep the game close with the hopes the offense would strap their helmets on and come out to play put them inside the ten yard line they broke.
I still say all you had to see was the somewhat disgusted look on Snacks Harrison's face as he stood on the sideline watching the ineptitude of his offensive counterparts getting nothing done. That said it all. You can slice this and dice this all you want but the offense was the one and only reason they lost this game. They did nothing to offset anything Dallas was able to accomplish.
How were special teams not doing their job??
Weren't just about all poor starting field position drives due to Dallas' punts?
Credit Dallas, and our inability to flip field position.
Yeah, this quite possibly will be a trend this season. A spiral of 3 and outs caused by bad field position on first down.
you didn't see what you wanted to see and you are ready to indict the most obvious victims you can find
The OP lasered onto a key problem on Sunday Night. It is the very difference between most games played last year and the first game this year. McAdoo plays a field position game. It is a critical part of his game management strategy. The Giants lost the field position element of his game on Sunday Night -- belittle it all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the entire offense was off balance.
The other small thing that occurred - which I think made a huge difference Sunday Night was the first offensive set of the Cowboys. That should have been a three and out - Zeke had been stopped before the first down marker on that third down play - but the Cowboys received an incredibly generous spot by the refs - for a first down. I think that play, if marked right and then gave the resulting punt, would have placed the Giants in great field position - and set the table for an entirely different outcome.
Correspondingly the Cowboys' field position off of the Giants punting game gave them outstanding field position throughout the first half.
It was different in the second half -- and the Cowboys only scored three points -- Coincidence? I think not.
The OP made some excellent points; I'm sure you all cringed each time Eli had his back to his own goal line.
Sure, it wasn't the ONLY reason, the O WAS putrid, but you can forgive a head coach in the 1st half to want to play VERY conservative given that field position, and count on his D to help flip the field.
It just didn't work out that way.
On to Detroit.
but according to these numbers, there isn't as much of a difference between the 10- and 20-yard lines as you might think:
http://phdfootball.blogspot.com/2013/06/field-position-and-scoring.html
Seems like we've been griping about special teams and the return game for quite some time now.
Anyone have stats on this? I'd be curious to see if it is reality or just perception.
I would bet the game would have been different if the Giants and Dallas flipped avg starting field position.
Because Dallas was moving the ball on offense. They had fewer three-and-outs. They won the field possession game, plain and simple. But they also won the turnover game, and time-of-possesion game.
So I disagree about boiling it down to starting field possession.
The Defense played admirably but they also didn't get too many 3-outs as I recall causing us to get pinned down frequently near our own endzone.
Quite frankly, any NFL team with a good punter is going to cause a lot of fits for this Giant offense this year.
The mere thought of this particular Giant offense going 70+ yards for a TD is just short of impossible...
Why?
If you start inside your own 20, why does that lower your odds of getting a couple of first downs? It shouldn't. Scoring points, yes. Gaining yards?
We shouldn't need to close up 90% of our playbook because we're so afraid of making a mistake in our own end. The only way to flip field position is to move the ball. We couldn't do it. We routinely punted from deep in our own territory making the Cowboys' life easy as pie.
It's one thing if you're literally backed up inside your own 5 - but bad field position shouldn't excuse a complete inability to even get a first down.
Quote:
"yeah but we can't move the ball anyway" are missing the point about the post. Starting at your 10 and not being able to move the ball go hand in hand, that's the point.
Why?
I just think the OP was trying to say that starting at your 10 on every drive changes the way you operate. You're more comfortable and have more plays in your arsenal. For example. 1st and 10 at your own 10. You're just looking for a positive play to keep you out of 3rd and long. 1st and 10 at the 45 or 50, you can take a deep shot and still have plenty of breathing room for 2nd and long, even 3rd and long. The defense isn't breathing down your neck at your own goal line.
??
You're kidding right?
Quote:
on the Cowboys' opening position lead directly to the bad field position. If that is properly spotted the Giants probably get the ball somewhere around their 30. Who knows what happens after that.
??
You're kidding right?
And you're right, we were starting almost every single drive around our own 10 yard line which really makes it difficult to put points on the board. But, that's not what the main problem was.
The main problem was that we were utterly incapable of moving the football.
Even if we had moved between the 20's but kept stalling and failing to score TD's - it would be frustrating, but you'd say alright - we've just got to find a way to cap these drives off and get the ball in the endzone.
We couldn't even get 1st downs. We got 2 the entire first half. That's a joke. It doesn't matter if you start at the 10 or the 40. You can't keep going 3 and out and punting the ball right back.
The field position issue was BECAUSE the offense was so inept at changing it. The offense wasn't inept because of poor field position. Big, and important distinction.
Also agree on your other points.
Quote:
"yeah but we can't move the ball anyway" are missing the point about the post. Starting at your 10 and not being able to move the ball go hand in hand, that's the point.
Why?
If you start inside your own 20, why does that lower your odds of getting a couple of first downs? It shouldn't. Scoring points, yes. Gaining yards?
We shouldn't need to close up 90% of our playbook because we're so afraid of making a mistake in our own end. The only way to flip field position is to move the ball. We couldn't do it. We routinely punted from deep in our own territory making the Cowboys' life easy as pie.
It's one thing if you're literally backed up inside your own 5 - but bad field position shouldn't excuse a complete inability to even get a first down.
This makes trick plays, pitches, and passing in general riskier.
When a team is pinned in - especially inside the 5, defenses can safely bet on the likelihood of a run or short pass. Safety's can cheat, moving closer to LOS.
Quote:
In comment 13599648 St. Jimmy said:
Quote:
on the Cowboys' opening position lead directly to the bad field position. If that is properly spotted the Giants probably get the ball somewhere around their 30. Who knows what happens after that.
??
You're kidding right?
They probably go three and out after if they get the ball there anyway. I don't think it cost them the game.
Clearly agree
you didn't see what you wanted to see and you are ready to indict the most obvious victims you can find
The OP lasered onto a key problem on Sunday Night. It is the very difference between most games played last year and the first game this year. McAdoo plays a field position game. It is a critical part of his game management strategy. The Giants lost the field position element of his game on Sunday Night -- belittle it all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the entire offense was off balance.
The other small thing that occurred - which I think made a huge difference Sunday Night was the first offensive set of the Cowboys. That should have been a three and out - Zeke had been stopped before the first down marker on that third down play - but the Cowboys received an incredibly generous spot by the refs - for a first down. I think that play, if marked right and then gave the resulting punt, would have placed the Giants in great field position - and set the table for an entirely different outcome.
Correspondingly the Cowboys' field position off of the Giants punting game gave them outstanding field position throughout the first half.
It was different in the second half -- and the Cowboys only scored three points -- Coincidence? I think not.
You and the OPR not wrong that field position played a big part but the field position disparity was also a function of an offense that could not move the ball and essentially a draw between our offense and their defense in the second half. We lost the field position battle as a function of losing the battle between our offense and their defense. It is also not like our defense dominate of their offense either. I don't recall us forcing many-if any-three and outs.
We couldn't move the ball at all to try to get back some of the field position. In the second half the Cowboys played a more conservative strategy. They didn't need to score. Our very long drive also bled a lot of time off of the clock as well.
The guy is 6'5 and 220+ with pads on so he is not going to just break in half when he takes a shot. And has been durable player obviously.
Nobody wants to get hit but if he is not going to step up in the heat of the moments, we can't win...
I do not agree with calling conservative plays in our own end. Does this mean the entire game was nothing but conservative calls. You call the plays that will move the sticks... period. If McAdoo is doing something other than that, then we have bigger coaching issues than what we originally thought.