Â
|
|
Quote: |
“The recent Super Bowl should tell you that it’s the way to go … we’re in a time right now where people are throwing the ball 60 percent of the time, but no matter what, there are three truths that will never change: you have to run the ball, you have to stop the run and you’ve got to rush the passer,” Gettleman told Yahoo Sports. “If you can’t do all three of those things, it makes it much more difficult to win. That’s just the way it is — big men allow you to compete. I’ve been to seven Super Bowls, OK? And not one of those teams had a bad line.” .... Even if he is remembered for whether the Beckham trade works out, Gettleman appears to be good with it. Because when asked what he’d do if everything goes poorly — like Beckham leading a football revival in Cleveland and this draft yielding marginal returns for the Giants — Gettleman let the question breathe for a few seconds before settling his eyes on the reporter. “It’s not gonna go poorly,” he said, with one last smirk. |
You win with a run game and the ability to beat up other teams on defense - go look at the last few years of playoff teams and tell me how many didn’t have top 10 running games. Even in this “new era” “passing league”,
IT’S STILL FOOTBALL.
The obsession with QBs is pathetic. They are a piece of the puzzle, not some demigod you “need” to win games.
There's absolutely no stopping what the league is evolving into; a passing, open-space, out-of-the-trenches game. The survival of the game depends on it.
This is absolute nonsense. Go look up the actual data regarding run games and team success. You’ll be surprised.
Quote:
The league will eventually start enforcing the targeting rule for RBs if teams follow the Pat's smash mouth playoff approach.
There's absolutely no stopping what the league is evolving into; a passing, open-space, out-of-the-trenches game. The survival of the game depends on it.
This is absolute nonsense. Go look up the actual data regarding run games and team success. You’ll be surprised.
I think you’re right. QB is inconsequential. Let’s line Tanney up as our QB and see how that works out. Frankly, unless we get some succession plan in place, that’s where we’re headed. No, not Tanney. But QB Hell nonetheless.
You win with a run game and the ability to beat up other teams on defense - go look at the last few years of playoff teams and tell me how many didn’t have top 10 running games. Even in this “new era” “passing league”,
IT’S STILL FOOTBALL.
The obsession with QBs is pathetic. They are a piece of the puzzle, not some demigod you “need” to win games.
Especially now when none of the young QBs outside of Mahomes look like true game changers.
There's absolutely no stopping what the league is evolving into; a passing, open-space, out-of-the-trenches game. The survival of the game depends on it.
If it becomes an “out of the trenches” game it will no longer be football.
Quote:
In comment 14395772 christian said:
Quote:
The league will eventually start enforcing the targeting rule for RBs if teams follow the Pat's smash mouth playoff approach.
There's absolutely no stopping what the league is evolving into; a passing, open-space, out-of-the-trenches game. The survival of the game depends on it.
This is absolute nonsense. Go look up the actual data regarding run games and team success. You’ll be surprised.
I think you’re right. QB is inconsequential. Let’s line Tanney up as our QB and see how that works out. Frankly, unless we get some succession plan in place, that’s where we’re headed. No, not Tanney. But QB Hell nonetheless.
Never said QB is inconsequential or that Tanney was an option, but you can continue throwing a tantrum if you’d like.
Feel free to look up the data regarding playoff/conference championship team success and rushing statistics (I’ll give you a hint, the best running teams in the last 3 seasons have been the most successful). You can win a SB with a guy like Nick Foles as your QB - when the rest of the team is built correctly.
People still drool over the “star QB” like some high school girls.
Quote:
In comment 14395790 GothamGiants said:
Quote:
In comment 14395772 christian said:
Quote:
The league will eventually start enforcing the targeting rule for RBs if teams follow the Pat's smash mouth playoff approach.
There's absolutely no stopping what the league is evolving into; a passing, open-space, out-of-the-trenches game. The survival of the game depends on it.
This is absolute nonsense. Go look up the actual data regarding run games and team success. You’ll be surprised.
I think you’re right. QB is inconsequential. Let’s line Tanney up as our QB and see how that works out. Frankly, unless we get some succession plan in place, that’s where we’re headed. No, not Tanney. But QB Hell nonetheless.
Never said QB is inconsequential or that Tanney was an option, but you can continue throwing a tantrum if you’d like.
Feel free to look up the data regarding playoff/conference championship team success and rushing statistics (I’ll give you a hint, the best running teams in the last 3 seasons have been the most successful). You can win a SB with a guy like Nick Foles as your QB - when the rest of the team is built correctly.
People still drool over the “star QB” like some high school girls.
Things go hand in hand, and you’re the one missing the point. The teams that make the POs typically - not always - but typically have very good or franchise QBs. The final 4 this year were Brees, Goff, Mahomes, and Brady. Obviously it varies, but for the most part it plays out that way.
The reason the best teams are typically near the top in rushing is two-fold: 1) they have leads, which allows them to run more; and 2) for those teams with franchise QBs, teams are forced to play the pass, thereby giving RBs favorable fronts.
You can’t just say, well, QB isn’t a need because running is what matters, because running - as stated above - is often directly tied to the presence of a franchise QB.
Quote:
In comment 14395810 Giants38 said:
Quote:
In comment 14395790 GothamGiants said:
Quote:
In comment 14395772 christian said:
Quote:
The league will eventually start enforcing the targeting rule for RBs if teams follow the Pat's smash mouth playoff approach.
There's absolutely no stopping what the league is evolving into; a passing, open-space, out-of-the-trenches game. The survival of the game depends on it.
This is absolute nonsense. Go look up the actual data regarding run games and team success. You’ll be surprised.
I think you’re right. QB is inconsequential. Let’s line Tanney up as our QB and see how that works out. Frankly, unless we get some succession plan in place, that’s where we’re headed. No, not Tanney. But QB Hell nonetheless.
Never said QB is inconsequential or that Tanney was an option, but you can continue throwing a tantrum if you’d like.
Feel free to look up the data regarding playoff/conference championship team success and rushing statistics (I’ll give you a hint, the best running teams in the last 3 seasons have been the most successful). You can win a SB with a guy like Nick Foles as your QB - when the rest of the team is built correctly.
People still drool over the “star QB” like some high school girls.
Things go hand in hand, and you’re the one missing the point. The teams that make the POs typically - not always - but typically have very good or franchise QBs. The final 4 this year were Brees, Goff, Mahomes, and Brady. Obviously it varies, but for the most part it plays out that way.
The reason the best teams are typically near the top in rushing is two-fold: 1) they have leads, which allows them to run more; and 2) for those teams with franchise QBs, teams are forced to play the pass, thereby giving RBs favorable fronts.
You can’t just say, well, QB isn’t a need because running is what matters, because running - as stated above - is often directly tied to the presence of a franchise QB.
And while 2017 was an exception, 2016 final four featured Matt Ryan, Aaron Rodgers, Big Ben, and Brady. I could go back farther, but I’m too lazy.
Quote:
"Make 'em eat their elbows."
I hope Gettleman does just that.
y
What does that mean, to eat ones elbows?
It means to make your detractors eat their words, to shut them up, to show that they were wrong to doubt you.
Many people are concerned about the number of touches Barkley gets. After diving into the stats it's clear that he is touching the ball A LOT. I think he can handle it and do so far beyond the normal "RB lifespan". However, the concerns are valid. Elliot may have taken more handoffs but Barkley had more targets and receptions. The good news is his average yards per carry and average yards per reception are higher than Elliot's.
-If Barkley had as many carries as Elliot he would have had 1522 rushing or 88 yards more than Elliot.
--It should be mentioned Elliot didn't play the final game against the Giants and still had more carries than Barkley (within the season).
-Barkley accounted for 2028 combined yards (most in the league) of 5697 total offensive yards for the Giants last year (or 36% if you prefer).
-Giants were 5th in Passing Play Percentage (64.02%). Seattle had the best rush offense? Well, they ran the ball the most (passed 47.56% of the time).
--Prior to the bye week (halfway point) the Giants HAD THE HIGHEST pass to run percentage meaning they ran the ball less than anyone else.
--True statement that they improved in the 2nd half of the season AFTER they picked up an average RG. Nobody seems to notice that they also RAN THE BALL MORE.
--Everyone says Seattle's OL is worse than the Giants yet they ran the ball more. They ran it effectively. They made the playoffs.
-Of the 12 teams in the playoffs, 8 were top 10 in running the ball vs passing the ball. Conference Championship games, 3 of 4 were top 10 in run percentage. In the SB, both were top 10 run percentage.
--The team with the highest paid QB in the league rushed the ball more than passed it good for highest in the league. The so-called GOAT (Brady), his team rushed it the 7th most in the league. They won the Super Bowl.
Looking at the defense now. I'm not saying defense is not a problem. It most certainly is. I will say that I think Betcher is doing well with what little he has.
-Our pass defense was ranked 10th last year which isn't that bad. However, we got rid of Vernon. To be clear, I agree that Pass Rusher is a major need for this team.
-Our rush defense was ranked 13th. I honestly thought it would be worse.
-Our total defense actually ranked 9th.
-Our passing offense was ranked 9th.
-Our rushing offense was ranked 24th.
-Our total offense was ranked 17th.
So how in the hell do the Giants have the best RB in the league and one of the worst rushing offenses in the league? Their OL was terrible, this is true, but their primary back is still getting high numbers. Conclusion, THEY DIDN'T RUN THE DAMN BALL ENOUGH!
Look the defense needs an infusion of talent. There is no denying that. However, I feel they really failed at the end of these games because the defense was gassed, tired, beat down, etc (not ignoring that they are not very talented). 12 picks in a deep defensive draft are just what the doctor ordered for this team. This draft is set up perfectly for the Giants. This draft has been highly touted as strong in DL, Pass Rush, and OL and the Giants have 12 picks. I don't really want a bandaid with Remmers (if rumors are true) and not take an OT. My wish is to trade up lower round picks to higher round picks and gobble up players for DL, Pass Rush, OT, and even an OC in the 3rd round or so would be nice.
Spell Barkley with Gallman and his 3.5 yards per carry average and 63.60% catch percentage but RUN THE DAMN BALL MORE! I understand not overplaying Barkley. However, more good teams RUN THE BALL MORE than bad teams.
Next season it should be simple, RUN THE DAMN BALL and keep your defense fresh!
We will need a bigger trophy case...
Spell Barkley with Gallman and his 3.5 yards per carry average and 63.60% catch percentage but RUN THE DAMN BALL MORE! I understand not overplaying Barkley. However, more good teams RUN THE BALL MORE than bad teams.
Next season it should be simple, RUN THE DAMN BALL and keep your defense fresh!
I'm not making a wise ass comment here, this is just my initial reaction to the above. I haven't looked at any stats, but it may be that good teams run the ball more than bad teams because good teams have somewhat comfortable 2nd half leads while bad teams are always playing catch-up. They have no choice but to throw.
Quote:
Spell Barkley with Gallman and his 3.5 yards per carry average and 63.60% catch percentage but RUN THE DAMN BALL MORE! I understand not overplaying Barkley. However, more good teams RUN THE BALL MORE than bad teams.
Next season it should be simple, RUN THE DAMN BALL and keep your defense fresh!
I'm not making a wise ass comment here, this is just my initial reaction to the above. I haven't looked at any stats, but it may be that good teams run the ball more than bad teams because good teams have somewhat comfortable 2nd half leads while bad teams are always playing catch-up. They have no choice but to throw.
I would argue teams run the ball more at the end of the season because the weather gets colder and ball control becomes an issue. Right off the cuff, I don't see how the Giants factor in that way because they certainly did not hold a 2nd half lead. However, this is an excellent counter-argument so I will check by comparing the team's first half seasons' to their full seasons ...
7 teams of the top 10 that rushed the ball more than the rest of the league in the first half of the season were still in the top 10 by season's end. Those that were not were the Patriots, Saints, and Ravens. In other words, those 2 teams rushed the ball more in the 2nd half of the season than they did in the first half.
True - The Patriots were not in the top 10 run to pass percentage in the first half of the season but were there by season's end. Plus, they were 6-2 by mid-season. They were 14th in rush vs pass by mid-season so although not top 10 they were still top half of the leauge.
True - The Saints were not in the top 10 either for the 1st half of the season. They were 7-1 (with a bye week) by mid-season. They ranked 12th in rush vs pass by mid-season which was just out of the top 10.
*False (admittedly with an asterisk) - The Ravens were not in the top 10 either for the 1st half of the season. They were 4-4 by mid-season. They went 6-2 the rest of the season. The asterisk because they basically changed their whole offense to one with a very mobile QB. That won't last IMHO.
Reminder: The Giants passed the ball more than any other team in the league for the first half of the season (69.96%). Dead last in rush vs pass. By season's end, they were 5th (64.02%) in pass vs rush and played far better. 5.94% doesn't seem like a big difference until you consider how much more they had to rush to offset that. I'm not saying the Giants should run MORE than pass. I'm saying the Giants need to run more than they did in 2018 and should have run more in 2018. They need to be closer to a 55% pass percentage IMHO.
Seattle who rushes the most: 47.76% mid-season pass percentage. 47.56% seasons end.
Patriots who won the SB:: 57.41% mid-season pass percentage. 54.91% seasons end
True there were a couple (2 out of 10) teams that ran the ball more the 2nd half of the season because they already had a strong league standing for the 1st half of the season. However, those 2 teams were still well within the top half of the league in how often they rushed vs the pass in the first half of the season.
I very much appreciated your counter-argument and thank you for presenting it in such a respectful way.
But to win in the Northeast, in the playoffs and when injuries pile up and when its the fourth Quarter and in the red zone...sorry...then you have to be able to run ( even to set up the pass)and stop the run and stop the other QB.
You have to do both...but to get to the next level you still have to be able to run and stop the run and rush in the 4th Q and late in the year.
The 2008 Giants were great but Plaxico did not wreck the end of the season...the inability to have depth on the DL did
The oddball 2016 season was built on stopping the run against weak opponents
The 2007 season was built on the DL even if the plays we remember were Eli
The great dynasties and perpetual winners are still based on those three realities.
That's not old. That's probability. That's analytics
Analytics does not have to come up with new wrinkles to be insightful...most often it confirms and re teaches fundamental truths about how to compete. Facts lead to where facts lead.
A sport based on endurance and motivation...culture matters...its an analytical truth. Not always true...a team can hate the other half of the players and win but that's not probability
Now...I saw a bunch of counter to that conclusion Fo mistakes in the front half of last fa/draft and season...but the aim of run the ball, stop the run, rush the passer, build a team culture of winning through effort and preparation? Analytics would support all those conclusions. Fact. Sorry. Analytics sometimes support essentials not just nuances.
There are a number of studies available on win probability, specifically 2004 onward when the pass interference rules were tightened. They've been posted here a number of times, if I have some time later I'll post them.
Just from a cursory look, yes, teams that run well have had success recently. Not surprisingly those teams also pass the ball well. Not to be sarcastic, but it's not shocking the good offensive teams do well.
Those factors can be causal or correlative -- I'd be careful in constructing a team on the premise that any factor is more important than the other based purely on list ranks.
The baseline of the game has changed and is continuing to change. This year we'll likely see aggregate movement of the ball (not pass yards mind you) via the pass increase with pass interference reviewable. We've seen aggregate movement of the ball on pass plays increase with the frequency of roughing the passer, and personal fouls on targets.
I strongly suspect if teams take on a smash mouth approach you'll see the NFL emphasize targeting penalties against lineman and running backs.
That's not to say running the ball isn't important or having a good line isn't important. It's just important in other ways than the smash mouth adage.
Yes, not enough depth on the D-Line was rough after Strahan retired and Osi got hurt. But against the Eagles in that playoff game, the D-Line wore down because the Giants couldn't move the ball. Without Plax, the Eagles sold out to stop the run. Plax, a bona fide "Eagle-killer," surely would have helped the Giants get a few more first downs, maybe even another TD or two, and give that worn out defense a break when they desperately needed it.
Quote:
In comment 14395790 GothamGiants said:
Quote:
In comment 14395772 christian said:
Quote:
The league will eventually start enforcing the targeting rule for RBs if teams follow the Pat's smash mouth playoff approach.
There's absolutely no stopping what the league is evolving into; a passing, open-space, out-of-the-trenches game. The survival of the game depends on it.
This is absolute nonsense. Go look up the actual data regarding run games and team success. You’ll be surprised.
I think you’re right. QB is inconsequential. Let’s line Tanney up as our QB and see how that works out. Frankly, unless we get some succession plan in place, that’s where we’re headed. No, not Tanney. But QB Hell nonetheless.
Never said QB is inconsequential or that Tanney was an option, but you can continue throwing a tantrum if you’d like.
Feel free to look up the data regarding playoff/conference championship team success and rushing statistics (I’ll give you a hint, the best running teams in the last 3 seasons have been the most successful). You can win a SB with a guy like Nick Foles as your QB - when the rest of the team is built correctly.
People still drool over the “star QB” like some high school girls.
Okay so how many combined championships over the last 20 years did Adrian Peterson, LaDainian Tomlinson, Shaun Alexander, Marshawn Lynch, Jamaal Charles, Arian Foster, DeMarco Murray, and Leveon Bell win?
And how many did Brady, Rodgers, Brees and Peyton win?
Quote:
In comment 14395810 Giants38 said:
Quote:
In comment 14395790 GothamGiants said:
Quote:
In comment 14395772 christian said:
Quote:
The league will eventually start enforcing the targeting rule for RBs if teams follow the Pat's smash mouth playoff approach.
There's absolutely no stopping what the league is evolving into; a passing, open-space, out-of-the-trenches game. The survival of the game depends on it.
This is absolute nonsense. Go look up the actual data regarding run games and team success. You’ll be surprised.
I think you’re right. QB is inconsequential. Let’s line Tanney up as our QB and see how that works out. Frankly, unless we get some succession plan in place, that’s where we’re headed. No, not Tanney. But QB Hell nonetheless.
Never said QB is inconsequential or that Tanney was an option, but you can continue throwing a tantrum if you’d like.
Feel free to look up the data regarding playoff/conference championship team success and rushing statistics (I’ll give you a hint, the best running teams in the last 3 seasons have been the most successful). You can win a SB with a guy like Nick Foles as your QB - when the rest of the team is built correctly.
People still drool over the “star QB” like some high school girls.
Okay so how many combined championships over the last 20 years did Adrian Peterson, LaDainian Tomlinson, Shaun Alexander, Marshawn Lynch, Jamaal Charles, Arian Foster, DeMarco Murray, and Leveon Bell win?
And how many did Brady, Rodgers, Brees and Peyton win?
Google where the Patriots rank every year in rushing. Hint - top 10. Even with one of the best quarterbacks in history, the Patriots make it a priority to run the ball effectively.
The Pats rebuilt themselves with a power running game with a full back and took advantage of this in this years playoffs. Their final drive to bury the Rams in the Super Bowl was straight out of the 80s.
Now, it helps when you have Brady, Gronk and others with Belichick coaching them of course, but that’s why DG needs to draft well
I've gotten into it with people on here telling me "old school football doesn't win"
....the Patriots literally just went smash-mouth the whole playoff and just won another championship. Saying "they have Tom Brady" shows some here didn't watch the playoffs. He had one of his worst years since he came into the league. Tom's decline has already started. But they gave him a power run game, healthy play action mix, and when they do ask him to make big throws (just a fewer amount with the successful run game) he can do it provided time.
Winning in sports is kind of like all of the fad diets. "I have the best diet! look at my results!" You're diet works for you, but it is not the only pathway to being healthy. My point being, there are multiple ways to succeed. Dave Gettleman has an old school approach, but it a tried and true method.
And every type of offense or style has its kryptonite. When the UFC started, all of the Brazilian jiu-jitsu guys (namely the Gracie's) were submitting any and everyone. Everyone said BJJ was the be all end all martial art. What happened now? Wrestlers are dominating MMA. The kryptonite of the BJJ fighter? He wants the fight on the ground, but their takedowns are historically weak. Wrestlers keep the fight where they want since their forte is takedowns and takedown defense. So yes, the league wants to spread it out. But with anything in life, i believe it'll regress back to the mean. Couple of smashmouth pro style offenses will be control the flow of the game and win, everyone will remember why it is such a popular method.
You can absolutely win with Dave Gettleman's approach. Of course you need to draft well, hit on free agent signings, have a good coach who adjusts in game...a lot of breaks have to go your way......winning is fucking hard. Happy i've seen them win twice in my life.
Zeke...agreed
Otherwise this a strange way to show a different strategy...
-Of the 5 games the Giants actually won last season, the highest pass percentage was 58.18%. In other words, when they passed the ball less and ran the ball more, they won games.
So a legitimate argument was made about running more often late in the season. I figured the natural counter-argument would be similar this time. Teams in a commanding lead in a game will rush the ball to close out the game. It's a legitimate counter.
-Game 3 the Giants are up 20-15 with 7:31 left to play. They passed the ball 55% of the time.
--They ran the ball 3 times for a total of 1 yard. A 2 yard run. A -2 yard run. A 1 yard run.
--Eli had to pass since the run wasn't working because the Texans defense was now playing against the run. Result was a TD through the air.
--I don't think any of us new yet the team's pension for not closing out games but the score is now 27-15 with 2:13 left to play. Sure enough, Houston goes down and scores to end the game 27-22 and the Giants' offense never had to touch the ball again.
-Giants didn't win again until week 10 and the passed the rock 58.18%.
--Quick sum up ... they were behind (not ahead) 20-23 with about 2:50 to go for their drive. They never ran the ball (no time). They also overcame 31 yards of penalties on the drive to score a TD leaving only 0:57 seconds on the clock. 49ers still managed to get to the Giants 21 yard line. If Giants had 1 less point, the 49ers would have tied it up with a FG.
-Week 11 was against the Buccs and they passed the ball 41.51% of the time. The Giants had a commanding league and control of most of the game until, yep, the defense started blowing the game.
--Eli had to take back the game. There was a 2 yard run, a 54 yard pass, a 6 yard run, and a 3 yard TD run.
--This left 3:55 on the clock and 38-28 lead. Naturally, the defense gave up another TD and the Giants did run out the game (I guess) with 3 runs and a punt.
--Eli was 17/18 for 231 yards and 2 TDs. Barkley had 27 carries for 142 yards w/ 2 TD (1 through the air).
-Week 13 was against the Bears and they passed the ball 57.35% of the time.
--Trying to make this shorter. Giants won it on a game winning FG. The drive was a combination of run and pass but the drive kicked off with a 29 yard run. Eli was 19/35 for 170 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT. Barkley 24 carries and 125 yards.
-Week 14 was the Redskins and it was a blowout only passing the ball 46.03% fo the time. Do I really need to discuss this one? Eli 14 of 22 for 197 yards and 3 TDs. Barkley had 14 carries for 170 yards (12.1 AVG) and 1 TD. Giants pulled most of their starters at the end.
So the next lowest passing percentage game was 62.69% against the Colts. They lost by 1 point.
I'm not saying they should run Barkley all the time so spare me the exaggerated rebuttal. As I said before, they need to push more towards 55% pass or 45% run ratio if you prefer. It's still a passing league but that doesn't mean you ignore the run entirely. They also clearly need to improve the defense. I'm not denying that either but I will say running the ball more helps keep your defense fresh which they were not at the end of their games last year.
If you think stats don't provide good info you are wrong. Stats, when used correctly, can tell you a shit ton of info. I feel I used them correctly. Regardless, the fact that the only games the Giants won happened to be when they ran the ball more would have to be an amazing coincidence otherwise.
Moreover, running the football doesn’t suddenly become important in the playoffs. If it did, the teams with positive values of team rush efficiency would make the Super Bowl. Instead, only 26 of 42 Super Bowl teams from 1997 through 2017 had a positive rush efficiency value, a rate of 61.9%.
For example, Indianapolis won the Super Bowl after the 2006 season despite having the NFL’s worst team rush efficiency during the regular season. Green Bay ranked 31st out of 32 teams in rush efficiency during the 2010 regular season, but the Packers won the Super Bowl anyway.
[quote] the way to win in today’s game is to pass the ball and stop the pass. Wade Phillips adjusted his defense and has his edge rushers play the pass and stop the run on the way to the passer. It’s troubling to have a GM who seems to be so stubborn and old school.
Go look at the teams remaining in the conference championships the last few years, and then tell me run defense and running the ball isn’t still important.
Sure looks like “old school and stubborn” still wins.
[quote] the way to win in today’s game is to pass the ball and stop the pass. Wade Phillips adjusted his defense and has his edge rushers play the pass and stop the run on the way to the passer. It’s troubling to have a GM who seems to be so stubborn and old school.
Go look at the teams remaining in the conference championships the last few years, and then tell me run defense and running the ball isn’t still important.
Sure looks like “old school and stubborn” still wins.
Passing Yards per Attempt
1. Kansas City
4. Rams
7. Saints
10. New England
Passing TDS
1. Kansas City
7. Saints
8. Rams
11. New England
QBR
1. Kansas City
2. Saints
8. Rams
11. New England
But sure look at one side of the stats that help your argument and ignore context.
Quote:
In comment 14396853 ajr2456 said:
[quote] the way to win in today’s game is to pass the ball and stop the pass. Wade Phillips adjusted his defense and has his edge rushers play the pass and stop the run on the way to the passer. It’s troubling to have a GM who seems to be so stubborn and old school.
Go look at the teams remaining in the conference championships the last few years, and then tell me run defense and running the ball isn’t still important.
Sure looks like “old school and stubborn” still wins.
Passing Yards per Attempt
1. Kansas City
4. Rams
7. Saints
10. New England
Passing TDS
1. Kansas City
7. Saints
8. Rams
11. New England
QBR
1. Kansas City
2. Saints
8. Rams
11. New England
But sure look at one side of the stats that help your argument and ignore context.
All 4 teams top 10 in rushing TD
Rams, Saints, Patriots all top 6 in rushing yards per game.
Chiefs, the only team excluded, still finished with 6th best yards per attempt.
8 of the 10 best run defenses made the playoffs this year
Basically the only team that supports your argument is the Rams, but I’m the 1 focusing on only one side of the data right?
2017 and 2016 also support my claims. No matter how many passing league cliches you want to throw out there, running the ball/stopping the run is still important.
2017 SB Champs: #3 rushing offense, #1 rushing defense.
2017 Conference Championships: All 4 teams top 10 in rushing;
2016 Sb champs: 7th best rushing offense, 3rd best rushing defense
Good night.
Again, be careful with the causal correlative relationship and be alert to 1) how good historically most of the QBs are and also have been with good and bad run offenses 2) when and how critical those run yards accrued were. Are those teams running and being run on in high leverage situations in the aggregate?
Let's also look at the real logical hole in Gettleman's argument. He's got 2 defensive scenarios and 1 offensive.
If rushing the passer is a critical factor, stopping the pass rush by definition must be. Maybe that's not old school enough for the axiom, but the data absolutely supports it. The number one indicator of decreased QBR year over year over year is being under pressure.
Why is rushing the passer so important. Easy, throwing the ball downfield is the easiest way to accrue yards and points.
So maybe the axiom is run, stop the run, rush the quarterback, and protect the quarterback?
But then take a look at this great article on how bad the Giants secondary was even when opposing QBs were under pressure.
So maybe the axiom should be run, stop the run, pressure the quarterback, protect the quarterback, and defend the pass well.
And that still doesn't even cover the easiest way to accrue points and yards, which of course is to throw the ball downfield.
So maybe the axiom should really just be build a balanced roster that's good at all the components of football?
But people like to set value for other people using their own terms.
Run efficiency could mean several things in the NFL. A team that runs more than it passes? A team that has an effective run game regardless of how often they use it?
I think it refers to a team that runs more than it passes. As I've said before, yes, it's a passing league and has been for some time. What I am saying is that many teams, especially the Giants, have been over-compensating for that. I suggested the Giants should push for a 55% pass to 45% run efficiency which I think is their sweet spot. That's still a higher pass efficiency then run proficiency. I would be happy with a 60% to 40% pass efficiency as well. As I have shown, they lose when they go higher than 60% passing.
Last year, the Giants have lost every game where their passing percentage was above 62.69% (their lowest passing percentage from losses). They won every game where their running efficiency was lower than 58.18% (their highest passing percentage from wins). Their passing percentage average that came from losses was 70.26%. Their passing percentage average from wins was 51.61%.
Regardless, running the ball should be harder this coming season. Sure they picked up Zeitler and may improve the RT spot but they replaced OBJ with Golden. OBJ demanded double teams which made it harder to stack the box. I don't think Golden will demand any double teams. Defenses will be stacking the box more than they were before. Defenses will keep things in front of them even more. However, it should still create more time for pass catchers to get open. It will be interesting but I still think the Giants should try to hit a 55% pass percentage.
Rushing - ( New Window )
Again, be careful with the causal correlative relationship and be alert to 1) how good historically most of the QBs are and also have been with good and bad run offenses 2) when and how critical those run yards accrued were. Are those teams running and being run on in high leverage situations in the aggregate?
Let's also look at the real logical hole in Gettleman's argument. He's got 2 defensive scenarios and 1 offensive.
If rushing the passer is a critical factor, stopping the pass rush by definition must be. Maybe that's not old school enough for the axiom, but the data absolutely supports it. The number one indicator of decreased QBR year over year over year is being under pressure.
Why is rushing the passer so important. Easy, throwing the ball downfield is the easiest way to accrue yards and points.
So maybe the axiom is run, stop the run, rush the quarterback, and protect the quarterback?
But then take a look at this great article on how bad the Giants secondary was even when opposing QBs were under pressure.
So maybe the axiom should be run, stop the run, pressure the quarterback, protect the quarterback, and defend the pass well.
And that still doesn't even cover the easiest way to accrue points and yards, which of course is to throw the ball downfield.
So maybe the axiom should really just be build a balanced roster that's good at all the components of football?
Thank You Christian!!!
Thanks I will read up on it later.
Tom Sanders went to eight NBA finals.
There's a difference between being a passenger and being the driver - Gettleman may have been to seven SBs, but would you really credit him with seven when you're discussing his bona fides as a GM? I'd probably consider four to be a more relevant and significant total (and certainly is no slouch achievement).
That said, hasn't DG actually been to nine SBs? Going by his history, I count four with Buffalo, one with Denver, three with the Giants, one with Carolina. I wonder which two are wrong?
I see a definite overlap between people saying this and people who were downplaying the importance of having a player like Snacks that was literally the best at this in the game.
Oh nice to hear what a priority stopping the run is after we trade an all-pro player for a 4th round pick.
I see a definite overlap between people saying this and people who were downplaying the importance of having a player like Snacks that was literally the best at this in the game.
Oh nice to hear what a priority stopping the run is after we trade an all-pro player for a 4th round pick.
Because maybe attitude and culture superseded talent. Plus, they liked what delvin Tomlinson and BJ Hill could do. You can look at in a vacuum of talent and experience. That is exactly what Reese did and what got us in the mess we were in.
I am talking about how right after the trade happened tons of people tried to downplay the idea that stopping the run was even that important and the fact that Snacks was one dimensional made him more expendable and even overpaid.
I am talking about how right after the trade happened tons of people tried to downplay the idea that stopping the run was even that important and the fact that Snacks was one dimensional made him more expendable and even overpaid.
And what role exactly does Gettleman play in a player being a malcontent? That he actually holds them accountable? That he is making it an emphasis to change the culture from everyone is on a scholarship under Reese. I am not trying to rip Reese, but Reese made poor draft picks and stuck with them even when it was clear they sucked. I think Harrison's attitude played a role in him being traded, but the biggest factor imo was Gettleman, shurmur and bettcher liking the potential of Tomlinson and Hill more long term.
Let's not forget that snacks swung will hernandez's helmet at will hernandez during practice. I am sure that didn't leave the best impression with Gettleman or new coaching staff.
Some people misbehave when they are frustrated with leadership.
Also we've heard about DG loving Dexter Lawrence and Q Williams. Dexter Lawrence would kill to be Snacks on the field. And Q Williams has similar skill sets to Tomlinson and BJ Hill. That is to say, there is room for another talented big body no matter how much you like those players.
Some people misbehave when they are frustrated with leadership.
Also we've heard about DG loving Dexter Lawrence and Q Williams. Dexter Lawrence would kill to be Snacks on the field. And Q Williams has similar skill sets to Tomlinson and BJ Hill. That is to say, there is room for another talented big body no matter how much you like those players.
Gettleman was fired because ownership had sentimentality towards the older veteran players. Gettleman wasn't fired for performance or anything more than a difference of opinion in regards to personnel. Some players didn't like him because he did not resign them or he cut them.
Look how our very own players acted under mcadoo and Reese. Collins was regularly making comments in the media. Apple was acting out. Snacks was lashing out at the media and former players. Erik flowers was lashing out. I could go on and on with examples. I have not seen that here yet and outside of the players let go in carolina, It wasn't coming out of the players on the Panthers roster while Gettleman was there either. As a matter of fact the Panthers had success and have struggled since he left (.500 record).
Imo, Harrison was strictly a nose tackle in the 3-4 bettcher was running. Harrison made quotes in training camp about this new defensive scheme not fitting what he wants to do and difficulty adjusting. There wasn't versatility in what snacks could do. Hill and Tomlinson especially can play on the outside (defensive end as well as the nose tackle). The same as quinnen Williams and lawrence. Bettcher wants his defensive line to attack. Harrison is a clogger and run stuffer.
Just different players for different schemes. I think Harrison saw he wasn't a fit and the giants saw it too and that's a big reason he was traded.
Harrison not comfortable with new scheme - ( New Window )
NoGainDayne : 3:08 pm : link : reply
some people addressed the attitude thing at the time but I don't even want to go down that road because some people aren't willing to acknowledge the fact that DG might actually play a role in some of the malcontent behavior. (No complaints about Snacks prior to DG getting here)
Snacks actively avoided the idea he could be a role model and actually said his job was just to play. Then he was rumored to be among thos in the locker room that had attitude issues.
And when he was with the Jets, he was in an all-out brawl with Jason Ferguson.
I personally just don't think you can construct a roster only full of good dudes who play and practice hard all of the time. At some point the coach will need to manage and get the most out of some imperfect characters.
Part of the human experience is the really talented knowing and acting like it.