I did a little digging. The Giants ran 11 personnel 81% of the time in 2015, Coughlin's last year with the Giants. From what we saw these last two weeks that number has gone up to over 90%. They were over 90% last year. I would have guessed that they ran 11 personnel less frequently under Coughlin and while this is true, it's not that much of a difference. Basically 10-15% less.
Although most teams use 11 personnel as their primary package in today’s NFL, nobody has done it quite like the Giants. At
81 percent, they are the first team to use a single personnel package more than 75 percent of the time since we started tracking
specific personnel packages six years ago. (That’s based on positions, not having the exact same men on the field.) |
Still doesn't absolve McAdoo by any stretch but with better TEs on the roster compared to 2015..it's still confounding that they are using 11 so often.
link to 2015 personnel stats - (
New Window )
Ellison played just 24-of-56 snaps in Monday's 24-10 loss to the Lions. The 6-foot-5, 255-pound Ellison has played just 38 percent of the Giants' offensive snaps in the first two games. Compare that with speedy tight end Evan Engram, who has played 81 percent of the offensive snaps.
Ellison was supposed to help the offensive line in pass protection and run-blocking, but he simply hasn't been on the field enough to make an impact. Engram has flashed his ability as a receiver, but he predictably isn't much of a factor as a blocker.
The Giants were in 11 personnel (one running back, one tight end, three wide receivers) on 42 snaps in Monday's game, according to Pro Football Focus. They used two-tight end sets on 11 snaps and they had three snaps with two backs and one or no tight ends.
i'll keep looking...
Link - ( New Window )
I still need to watch Det @ NYG-- I was at the game but you only see so much at the game. PRoblem is I don't have the stomach to watch it. I do want to see how "bad" Ellison looked in limited duty since our very own HomerJones insists he was rightfully benched due to poor play.
When you keep a defense guessing or at least honoring the run game you will be able to pass more effectively with a QB of Eli's skill set.
Defenses won't honor the run until you show you can do it and will do it.
Clearer for folks.
Engram played 43 of 56 snaps (77%). From your link Ellison played 24. This means that they had to be on the field at the same time at least 11 times. In addition I know on the long Adams completion Engram was on the field with him.
Just counting the plays we know must have included 2 tight ends there would be a minimum of 12 snaps.
Either way, in order to be >90% on Monday there could not have been more than 5 offensive plays with any combination of Ellison/Engram/Adams.
Again, this isn't completely conclusive but made a pretty good argument that someone is reporting things wrong.
Also, Smith got four snaps on his own on offense, and I don't remember any snaps with no HB in the game and I've watched the all-22 pretty closely three times already besides watching it live.
I'm not a football coach - but wouldn't the most obvious problem with 11 personnel be that there is no fullback for blocking? And, considering that the Giants are being laughed at on every NFL show I watch or listen to regarding their pathetic blocking, wouldn't a fullback or guy like Ellison be kind of helpful to to this offense? You know, to either stay in the backfield and pass block or run out of the backfield and lead block?
Again, I get back to the breath taking arrogance of Ben McAdoo. His personnel packages are obviously not working and yet he has done nothing to adjust. It's like - WTF - the 11 ain't working Ben - can we please try something else?
Quote:
..
Engram played 43 of 56 snaps (77%). From your link Ellison played 24. This means that they had to be on the field at the same time at least 11 times. In addition I know on the long Adams completion Engram was on the field with him.
Just counting the plays we know must have included 2 tight ends there would be a minimum of 12 snaps.
Either way, in order to be >90% on Monday there could not have been more than 5 offensive plays with any combination of Ellison/Engram/Adams.
Again, this isn't completely conclusive but made a pretty good argument that someone is reporting things wrong.
Also, Smith got four snaps on his own on offense, and I don't remember any snaps with no HB in the game and I've watched the all-22 pretty closely three times already besides watching it live.
pretty sure any source that is claiming >90% is counting Engram as a WR. Rightfully so... but probably what's causing the confusion.
How do the numbers of the Giants playing 11 personnel compare with the rest of the teams in the NFL?
Quote:
In comment 13610853 djm said:
Quote:
..
Engram played 43 of 56 snaps (77%). From your link Ellison played 24. This means that they had to be on the field at the same time at least 11 times. In addition I know on the long Adams completion Engram was on the field with him.
Just counting the plays we know must have included 2 tight ends there would be a minimum of 12 snaps.
Either way, in order to be >90% on Monday there could not have been more than 5 offensive plays with any combination of Ellison/Engram/Adams.
Again, this isn't completely conclusive but made a pretty good argument that someone is reporting things wrong.
Also, Smith got four snaps on his own on offense, and I don't remember any snaps with no HB in the game and I've watched the all-22 pretty closely three times already besides watching it live.
pretty sure any source that is claiming >90% is counting Engram as a WR. Rightfully so... but probably what's causing the confusion.
The problem with counting Engram as a WR is that those stats aren't showing the Giants as being in 10 personnel when Engram and Shepard are both on the field, which means they are counting personnel in a way that is formation dependent. That makes that data murky at best. What happens if the Giants send out 12 personnel with Ellison inline and Engram at H-Back but then motion Engram into the slot? Does that become 11 personnel in their metrics?
Engram is listed as a TE and should be counted as such in personnel groupings. If a site wants to take an alternative view and count him as a WR, they need to do so on all of his plays for consistency. That's what differentiates personnel groupings from formations.
pretty sure any source that is claiming >90% is counting Engram as a WR. Rightfully so... but probably what's causing the confusion.
The problem with counting Engram as a WR is that those stats aren't showing the Giants as being in 10 personnel when Engram and Shepard are both on the field, which means they are counting personnel in a way that is formation dependent. That makes that data murky at best. What happens if the Giants send out 12 personnel with Ellison inline and Engram at H-Back but then motion Engram into the slot? Does that become 11 personnel in their metrics?
Engram is listed as a TE and should be counted as such in personnel groupings. If a site wants to take an alternative view and count him as a WR, they need to do so on all of his plays for consistency. That's what differentiates personnel groupings from formations.
This is correct - the "11 personnel" that's been used around here so much is not about formation.
I like CBoss7's thinking - trying to figure out how to get there. Problem is that there were only three TE who got any offensive snaps (LaCosse was inactive). If they're counting Engram as WR, that means there were only a total of 25 snaps with 1 TE on the field (Ellison 24, Adams 1). So the rest would have to be 10 or 20 personnel. 25/56 is not >90%.
What is more likely is sloppy data collection, where someone at PFF or wherever simply looks at formations (if there are 6 on the OL = 1TE 7 = 2TE, etc.) and then the journalists and editors latch onto that and keep reporting it, without verifying it.
Since we really don't know, I think it's useless info.
THEY HAVE OTHER PACKAGES?
I thought they had only 2:
11 personnel .........and punt formation.
Before anyone jumps on me and tells me that we scored a lot of points in garbage time or had to play catch up constantly because our defense was historically bad - I know that.
But even in those situations - when we were trailing, teams knew we had to throw and had to score quickly. They weren't blitzing a whole lot as far as I can remember. They weren't putting extra men in the box. We were a below average running team and our leading rusher was Rashad Jenning who averaged barely over 50 yards a game.
The 2015 offense put up 30 points or more 7 times.
Everyone remembers the Carolina game because of Odell and Norman, but we were getting blown out that game and the offense scored 3 TD's in the 4th quarter alone to tie the game at 35 against the 6th best defense in football.
I'm not understanding why this offense became completely inept as soon as we were actually able to play defense. There shouldn't really be a strong correlation because teams are just playing coverage from the start now and rushing 4 which is what they generally did when we were trailing in games 2 years ago - but we still moved the football and got down the field somehow.
Were they really not employing C2 against us back then?
Something just doesn't add up. I'm hesitant to say it's more on Eli's shoulders than we think... but I'm having a hard time coming up with other explanations.
In 2015, our WR's were Beckham, Randle, Harris, Parker, Myles White.. we even had to call Hakeem Nicks back because we were so depleted.
And yet, Eli threw 35 TD passes to just 14 INT's and threw for nearly 4500 yards.
Flowers was still the LT, Pugh was next to him, Richburg was in the middle, Jerry and Schwartz split time @ RG and Newhouse was the RT.
I doubt it took two full seasons for teams to "figure out" our offense - if there was some specific way to shut it down, it would have happened sooner than that in this league.
Just seems like something is amiss.
And again, what were are looking at here is most likely a combination of things.
I also don't think the 18 million dollar TE/FB makes that much of a difference. I think once again, the FO was enamored of the fact that this guy was former 4th rounder and thought Minnesota wasn't utilizing his talents and they are now finding out that he neither runs all that well nor is all that quick. He also has not blocked particularly well when he has played.
We have no identity as an offense. What is this offense's signature play? A play they run often and well that the offense is built around. It doesn't seem that there is one and we try a little of this, a little of that and get a whole lot of nothing.