I believe Pat Shurmur is on to something.
In the first 8 games of the season, the Giants were 1-7, and they averaged 18.75 ppg on Offense
However in the next 8 games, the Giants went 4-4, and averaged 27.4 ppg on Offense.
What was the difference offensively?
Some will say the offensive line, and I would agree. However I believe there is another factor not being considered.
Notice these numbers in the beginning of the year.
Against the Cowboys Week 2
The Giants had 69 total snaps on offense. Shurmur had Manning in Shotgun formation 56 times, or 81% of the time.
He only had Manning under center 13 times, or 18% of the time. The Giants scored 13 points.
By keeping Manning in Shotgun formation so much, it eliminated the play action and rolling him out.
Against the Saints week 4, and Jaguars week 1, the results were similar with Manning in Shotgun formation some 68% of the time.
Now notice the difference against the Colts week 15.
Giants had 66 total snaps on offense. Shurmur does the opposite, he has Manning "under center", instead of shotgun 45 times, or 68% of the time.
He only had Manning in Shotgun formation 21 times, or 31% of the time. The Giants scored 27 points.
Similar results against Washington week 13. Manning was under center 55% of the time, and the Giants scored 40 points.
It took him a while to figure it out, but by keeping Manning "under center", it allowed for more creativity, and kept the defenses honest, instead of just teeing off on the QB.
I believe whoever the QB is next year, this will be the formula going forward...
Sxdxca
I am just amazed at teams getting 1st and goal inside the five and immediately going to shotgun.
Under center gives you so many more options IMO.
We went through a process at Fullback that included the discovery that Shane Smith sucked and then a time period where we had to let Elijah Penny learn the offense and earn himself some playing time. He did just that. I am looking forward to seeing him progress next season. If the Giants can continue to improve the blocking from the blue collar no name guys while building a real NFL Offensive Line we might get back to respectability while earning a reputation as a physical offensive team.
How does the other teams starting QB impact our offense?
In games which we were trailing and forced to pass... we ran less and didnt use play action as much.
amirite? Sometimes research fails the OP and he doesnt even know it.
How about the Colts when they allowed 28...?
Oh you mean the Bears when they gave up 27...?
Or when Tampa Bay scored 35..?
The offense after the bye week was not the problem...
"amirite" is this a mineral?
Or
Am I right?
correct words are your friend too....
Quote:
but I keep hearing about the great offensive numbers over the second half of the season and how that means we are going to be good offensively next year. The thing I don't here people acknowledge was that in the second half of the season we played a much easier schedule. There were several games where we played teams (Bears and Washington come to mind) that did not have their QB's. When we played a decent team (the Cowboys) on the last game of the season they sat some of their most important players and still beat us in our building. This is going to keep repeating itself until the talent level of this team gets a lot better starting with the QB position (I love Eli but it is over).
How does the other teams starting QB impact our offense?
are you serious? Im not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone on this thread but if you've been watching football long enough you must've seen what the giants did to Buffalo Bills offense in SUper Bowl by running the ball, right?
without the other team having their top QB they don't control the ball as much, the Gmens defense as bad as it is has less to worry about, and the Gmen aren't likely to get as behind as much, or feel as much pressure to score right away.
And the Gmen are likely ot get some critical turnovers from a 2nd string QB or the 2nd string QB won't move the ball as well thus field position for the Giants offense can be better.
**There's a reason why the QB position is regarded as the most important position on the field.
That said, we are definitely onto something running an old school play action scheme. There is no defense for it, and there never will be.
Everything in the NFL is cyclical. Defenses that are getting smaller and faster in the back 7 and on the edges (build to defend the spread) are susceptible to a power running/play action scheme.
The offense after the bye week was not the problem...
What about before the bye when they were 1-7 and the defense wasn’t giving up 30 ppg?
You know before they traded Snacks and before Collins went out.
You cannot win with those numbers...
20 and you score 15 and 13.
23 and you score 20.
20 and you score 13.
17 and you score 0.
That’s 5 games the defense did it’s job and they lost. The defense also held the Saints to 19 points through three quarters and the offense only put 18 for the whole game and put the defense in compromised spots, so really 6 games.
Split those and the Giants are 8-8. The offense was just as much of an issue as the defense and the season was over already by the time the defense fully fell apart.
Where would we look this up?
I think the OP's argument is interesting, but giving us figures for two cherry picked games in the first half and two in the second half is not convincing. What are the overall numbers for first half vs. second half?
Quote:
You should really look up the difference between analysis and stat regurgitation.
Where would we look this up?
I think the OP's argument is interesting, but giving us figures for two cherry picked games in the first half and two in the second half is not convincing. What are the overall numbers for first half vs. second half?
I’m it sure if any where charts PA percentage by game and under center vs shotgun.
Knowing how much they ran PA under center vs shotgun and the success rate in each individual game would make those stats meaningful. Otherwise they’re just numbers thrown to the wall.
stop with the agenda-driven nonsense...
Maybe so, but your offense STILL has to move the ball and score. The Bears defense didn't mail it in, nor did anyone else outside of the Redskins.
Quote:
but I keep hearing about the great offensive numbers over the second half of the season and how that means we are going to be good offensively next year. The thing I don't here people acknowledge was that in the second half of the season we played a much easier schedule. There were several games where we played teams (Bears and Washington come to mind) that did not have their QB's. When we played a decent team (the Cowboys) on the last game of the season they sat some of their most important players and still beat us in our building. This is going to keep repeating itself until the talent level of this team gets a lot better starting with the QB position (I love Eli but it is over).
How does the other teams starting QB impact our offense?
It absolutely does, if the other team is going three and out or losing the field position battle, your offense is getting better and more opportunities. Also your own defense could be fresher and more effective later in the game. Football is a symbiotic game what one’s team’s offense is able to do will affect their defense, for instance if you go three and out a couple of times in a row you will wear your own defense out, e.g.
Quote:
In comment 14249389 Chris L. said:
Quote:
but I keep hearing about the great offensive numbers over the second half of the season and how that means we are going to be good offensively next year. The thing I don't here people acknowledge was that in the second half of the season we played a much easier schedule. There were several games where we played teams (Bears and Washington come to mind) that did not have their QB's. When we played a decent team (the Cowboys) on the last game of the season they sat some of their most important players and still beat us in our building. This is going to keep repeating itself until the talent level of this team gets a lot better starting with the QB position (I love Eli but it is over).
How does the other teams starting QB impact our offense?
It absolutely does, if the other team is going three and out or losing the field position battle, your offense is getting better and more opportunities. Also your own defense could be fresher and more effective later in the game. Football is a symbiotic game what one’s team’s offense is able to do will affect their defense, for instance if you go three and out a couple of times in a row you will wear your own defense out, e.g.
That point would work if they Bears weren't scoring or moving the ball. They put up 27 points.
Quote:
In comment 14249396 Eli Wilson said:
Quote:
In comment 14249389 Chris L. said:
Quote:
but I keep hearing about the great offensive numbers over the second half of the season and how that means we are going to be good offensively next year. The thing I don't here people acknowledge was that in the second half of the season we played a much easier schedule. There were several games where we played teams (Bears and Washington come to mind) that did not have their QB's. When we played a decent team (the Cowboys) on the last game of the season they sat some of their most important players and still beat us in our building. This is going to keep repeating itself until the talent level of this team gets a lot better starting with the QB position (I love Eli but it is over).
How does the other teams starting QB impact our offense?
It absolutely does, if the other team is going three and out or losing the field position battle, your offense is getting better and more opportunities. Also your own defense could be fresher and more effective later in the game. Football is a symbiotic game what one’s team’s offense is able to do will affect their defense, for instance if you go three and out a couple of times in a row you will wear your own defense out, e.g.
That point would work if they Bears weren't scoring or moving the ball. They put up 27 points.
The point still holds, if Trubisky plays they probably score more and hold the ball longer, and that’s just one game. The Redskin game playing Sanchez was like playing downhill, etc. it’s a TEAM game!
Quote:
In comment 14249734 gmenatlarge said:
Quote:
In comment 14249396 Eli Wilson said:
Quote:
In comment 14249389 Chris L. said:
Quote:
but I keep hearing about the great offensive numbers over the second half of the season and how that means we are going to be good offensively next year. The thing I don't here people acknowledge was that in the second half of the season we played a much easier schedule. There were several games where we played teams (Bears and Washington come to mind) that did not have their QB's. When we played a decent team (the Cowboys) on the last game of the season they sat some of their most important players and still beat us in our building. This is going to keep repeating itself until the talent level of this team gets a lot better starting with the QB position (I love Eli but it is over).
How does the other teams starting QB impact our offense?
It absolutely does, if the other team is going three and out or losing the field position battle, your offense is getting better and more opportunities. Also your own defense could be fresher and more effective later in the game. Football is a symbiotic game what one’s team’s offense is able to do will affect their defense, for instance if you go three and out a couple of times in a row you will wear your own defense out, e.g.
That point would work if they Bears weren't scoring or moving the ball. They put up 27 points.
The point still holds, if Trubisky plays they probably score more and hold the ball longer, and that’s just one game. The Redskin game playing Sanchez was like playing downhill, etc. it’s a TEAM game!
And just to add to that, if one team is winning the field position battle with their offense, your own offense is always starting in a hole. To think that one team’s offense doesn’t affect the other is myopic at best.
At the beginning of the year, it's not that Shurmur didn't want to take advantage of that, it's that the O-line simply didn't allow time time for the QB to take his eyes away from the L.O.S. to execute the play-action.
With a guy ilke Barkley in the back field the defense is FORCED to think run 1st - that makes play- action 100% more effective.
Quote:
are your friend.
"amirite" is this a mineral?
Or
Am I right?
correct words are your friend too....
Lol. You haven’t seen this used on BBI all the time?
Quote:
In comment 14249734 gmenatlarge said:
Quote:
In comment 14249396 Eli Wilson said:
Quote:
In comment 14249389 Chris L. said:
Quote:
but I keep hearing about the great offensive numbers over the second half of the season and how that means we are going to be good offensively next year. The thing I don't here people acknowledge was that in the second half of the season we played a much easier schedule. There were several games where we played teams (Bears and Washington come to mind) that did not have their QB's. When we played a decent team (the Cowboys) on the last game of the season they sat some of their most important players and still beat us in our building. This is going to keep repeating itself until the talent level of this team gets a lot better starting with the QB position (I love Eli but it is over).
How does the other teams starting QB impact our offense?
It absolutely does, if the other team is going three and out or losing the field position battle, your offense is getting better and more opportunities. Also your own defense could be fresher and more effective later in the game. Football is a symbiotic game what one’s team’s offense is able to do will affect their defense, for instance if you go three and out a couple of times in a row you will wear your own defense out, e.g.
That point would work if they Bears weren't scoring or moving the ball. They put up 27 points.
The point still holds, if Trubisky plays they probably score more and hold the ball longer, and that’s just one game. The Redskin game playing Sanchez was like playing downhill, etc. it’s a TEAM game!
Except the TOP was:
Bears: 33:58
Giants: 33:13
And let's not make Trubisky out to be Tom Brady. Yes, Daniels is a back up, and Trubisky is better, but its not like the drop off Between Brady and his back up.
Quote:
In comment 14249835 JOrthman said:
Quote:
In comment 14249734 gmenatlarge said:
Quote:
In comment 14249396 Eli Wilson said:
Quote:
In comment 14249389 Chris L. said:
Quote:
but I keep hearing about the great offensive numbers over the second half of the season and how that means we are going to be good offensively next year. The thing I don't here people acknowledge was that in the second half of the season we played a much easier schedule. There were several games where we played teams (Bears and Washington come to mind) that did not have their QB's. When we played a decent team (the Cowboys) on the last game of the season they sat some of their most important players and still beat us in our building. This is going to keep repeating itself until the talent level of this team gets a lot better starting with the QB position (I love Eli but it is over).
How does the other teams starting QB impact our offense?
It absolutely does, if the other team is going three and out or losing the field position battle, your offense is getting better and more opportunities. Also your own defense could be fresher and more effective later in the game. Football is a symbiotic game what one’s team’s offense is able to do will affect their defense, for instance if you go three and out a couple of times in a row you will wear your own defense out, e.g.
That point would work if they Bears weren't scoring or moving the ball. They put up 27 points.
The point still holds, if Trubisky plays they probably score more and hold the ball longer, and that’s just one game. The Redskin game playing Sanchez was like playing downhill, etc. it’s a TEAM game!
Except the TOP was:
Bears: 33:58
Giants: 33:13
And let's not make Trubisky out to be Tom Brady. Yes, Daniels is a back up, and Trubisky is better, but its not like the drop off Between Brady and his back up.
Let's not make it sound like the dropoff is near insignificant either. It is a big dropoff thus the TOP would have been much different.
Umm let's see- the 1st TD in that game was by the defense.
Secondly, in the 2nd qtr with 13 min left the backup QB threw another interception. SO the Bears were driving wither a TD or a FG thus at the end of the half the score would havebeen either 17-3 or 21-3. What do you think would have happened in a game like that from that point instead of it being 14-10?
Quote:
They already had it by almost two minutes more. Hell, even Drew Brees and the Saints only held the ball 2 minutes longer.
Umm let's see- the 1st TD in that game was by the defense.
Secondly, in the 2nd qtr with 13 min left the backup QB threw another interception. SO the Bears were driving wither a TD or a FG thus at the end of the half the score would havebeen either 17-3 or 21-3. What do you think would have happened in a game like that from that point instead of it being 14-10?
You act like Trubisky never threw any INT's or had any fumbles. Just because Daniels had those turnovers, doesn't mean if Trubisky would of been in there, the outcome would of completely changed.
Quote:
In comment 14251590 JOrthman said:
Quote:
They already had it by almost two minutes more. Hell, even Drew Brees and the Saints only held the ball 2 minutes longer.
Umm let's see- the 1st TD in that game was by the defense.
Secondly, in the 2nd qtr with 13 min left the backup QB threw another interception. SO the Bears were driving wither a TD or a FG thus at the end of the half the score would havebeen either 17-3 or 21-3. What do you think would have happened in a game like that from that point instead of it being 14-10?
You act like Trubisky never threw any INT's or had any fumbles. Just because Daniels had those turnovers, doesn't mean if Trubisky would of been in there, the outcome would of completely changed.
You act like a 2nd string QB is always a 1st string QB.
Laughable to use TOP. Simply laughable.
Sure buddy a 1st staring qb won;t have more than a 2nd string QB. So sys the unbias Giants fan. All 2nd string QB;s and 1st string QB;s are the same. I got it Mr Giant. After all we know the great Giant defense would have come through no matter the quality of the other team's QB.