The 2017 offense was historically bad and the fact that they couldn't put up 24 points in a game further drives home that fact.
They couldn't run the ball for shit and couldn't throw the ball down field. I would be curious how many of those rushes that accounted for that stat were 3rd and long situations where Benny was looking to play the "field position" game.
I wonder if this is part of the offense Shurmur said they would keep from last year. Could be something they did well but didn’t stick with often enough.
It’s easy to say “who cares it only got us 3 wins” but if Mcadoo and Sullivan didn’t adjust to feature it when doing any review would have shown it was something that was being done well then it’s just more of an indictment of that staff.
Run the RPO when you have no running back, no offensive line and no threat of a running qb. Probably why the offense was shit. Ran a system that had no chance to succeed.
because the thing being measured is so specific. The stat says the Giants were pretty effective running the ball off run-pass option. Could be true -- that fits Eli's strength at reading defenses. But it's not measuring overall effectiveness of the play-call, just the effectiveness running the ball. As they say themselves, the Giants didn't pass well out of it.
Plus:
1) Small sample size -- I don't think the Giants ran RPO very often.
2) No context - Suppose it's 3rd and 12, the Giants call RPO and the defense defends the pass. Eli hands off and the RB goes for 6 yards. Now it's 4th and 6. The Giants have been "effective" running the ball out of the RPO but a fat lot of good those 6 yards did.
So it says something that might be "true" but isn't meaningful.
Did anyone even click thru to the PFF article? It didn’t say we were best at running RPOs. What a bogus click bait headline on the big blue view site. The writer made a stretch that the giants were 26th in overall ypc but 5th in rpo ypc, so their 21 point jump makes them the best at rpo carries"???
The actual article is interesting and educational. It’s worth reading the actual pff piece. It’s definitely not a giants article. Pff article - ( New Window )
Did anyone even click thru to the PFF article? It didn’t say we were best at running RPOs. What a bogus click bait headline on the big blue view site. The writer made a stretch that the giants were 26th in overall ypc but 5th in rpo ypc, so their 21 point jump makes them the best at rpo carries"???
The actual article is interesting and educational. It’s worth reading the actual pff piece. It’s definitely not a giants article. Pff article - ( New Window )
The most efficient in the NFC East which surprises the hell out of me since Philly used them often and were very successful at it.
We could have had the best avg. just because we didn’t run them often, and when we did we happened to gain better yardage.
Does PFF determine what they see as an "RPO"? Determining the play call, not play action or fakes or counters or runs gone bad that turn into passes or passes intentionally disguised doesn't make it an "RPO". Every fucking play has the RPO basically it's a made up term and totally useless. It used to be called play action or the option or the draw or the audible or misdirection...you get my point? It's a way to dump a lot of types plays into a bucket in order to make a new stat about it. It's utter bullshit.
Then PFF has no idea what they're looking at. This is totally bogus. A set of two marginally decent football eyes will tell anyone this was not the case.
Does PFF determine what they see as an "RPO"? Determining the play call, not play action or fakes or counters or runs gone bad that turn into passes or passes intentionally disguised doesn't make it an "RPO". Every fucking play has the RPO basically it's a made up term and totally useless. It used to be called play action or the option or the draw or the audible or misdirection...you get my point? It's a way to dump a lot of types plays into a bucket in order to make a new stat about it. It's utter bullshit.
I am thinking the same thing. I don't even recall seeing RPO before last year (or maybe the year before). The Giants didn't run any tdue options. But, if you want to take that angle, then every play they run with Eli at the helm should be considered RPO because he is finalizing virtually every play at the line. But, can you recall a single play where there was really any semblance of an option once the ball was snapped?
They couldn't run the ball for shit and couldn't throw the ball down field. I would be curious how many of those rushes that accounted for that stat were 3rd and long situations where Benny was looking to play the "field position" game.
It’s easy to say “who cares it only got us 3 wins” but if Mcadoo and Sullivan didn’t adjust to feature it when doing any review would have shown it was something that was being done well then it’s just more of an indictment of that staff.
Bingo!
Plus:
1) Small sample size -- I don't think the Giants ran RPO very often.
2) No context - Suppose it's 3rd and 12, the Giants call RPO and the defense defends the pass. Eli hands off and the RB goes for 6 yards. Now it's 4th and 6. The Giants have been "effective" running the ball out of the RPO but a fat lot of good those 6 yards did.
So it says something that might be "true" but isn't meaningful.
The actual article is interesting and educational. It’s worth reading the actual pff piece. It’s definitely not a giants article.
Pff article - ( New Window )
The actual article is interesting and educational. It’s worth reading the actual pff piece. It’s definitely not a giants article. Pff article - ( New Window )
The most efficient in the NFC East which surprises the hell out of me since Philly used them often and were very successful at it.
We could have had the best avg. just because we didn’t run them often, and when we did we happened to gain better yardage.
They were getting more than 4 yards a carry . Look at their averages . And that’s without getting any loose-change yardage from the quarterback .