"Gettleman defiant in face of legacy-defining draft"

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.

In comment 14396868 GothamGiants said:

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.

Pretty much describes traditional UW football, with the QB, as well, 'managing' the game.

In comment 14395770 Marty866b said:

Quote:

I think having Tom Brady as your quarterback and Bellichek as your coach is the main reasons why N.E. wins.

And a versatile roster so you always have an answer, and a coach who plays his roster like a fiddle. We don't have enough answers.

In comment 14396913 ajr2456 said:

Quote:

In comment 14396868 GothamGiants said: 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.

Of course good offenses have productive run games. But posting and re-posting a limited data set repeatedly doesn't get anywhere closer to understanding why, and more importantly whether that backs up the initial hypothesis which is roster construction should be influenced based on it.

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?

They define his “legacy” or success/failure in this draft purely on whether they get a QB now. I’m sure DG hinges his plan or his legacy on issues broader than just Eli.

But people like to set value for other people using their own terms.

Can you define what they meant by run efficiency for me please and is there a link? I'd be interested to read it myself.

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 efficiency is ypa gained - ypa given up
Rushing - ( New Window )

In comment 14397027 christian said:

Quote:

Of course good offenses have productive run games. But posting and re-posting a limited data set repeatedly doesn't get anywhere closer to understanding why, and more importantly whether that backs up the initial hypothesis which is roster construction should be influenced based on it. 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!!!

In comment 14397189 ajr2456 said:

Quote:

Rushing efficiency is ypa gained - ypa given up Rushing - ( New Window )

Thanks I will read up on it later.

In comment 14395600 GiantGrit said:

Quote:

Can't dispute that. Even when i disagree with some moves, i trust in the big picture.

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?

of 93 Buffalo (so he wasn't there in January 94 when Cowboys beat Bills in final Super Bowl) and came here in January of 98 after Denver finished the 97 season. I think the rules back then let scouts go to different jobs after regular season but I can be wrong. He has had a hand in 9 super bowls.

is really beside the point. The point is that DG can easily fail here and I will be a critic when he does, but the types in the media who mock him and have never done anything with their lives instead write drivel about a game they neither played nor were an executive in is just too rich. I mean if we can have Jordan Raanan tell us about how football works or Dave Gettlman, I would pick Gettleman every time. So, while it goes with the territory to criticize football coaches and executives, and the media should do that, when a guy gets a total rebuilding job and is getting crushed by media nobodies before his second draft (where he accumulated 12 picks) is a little too much for me to take seriously. I will comment on developing events, but I will probably not have a good assessment of Gettleman until AFTER the 2020 season.

they are prioritizing running and stopping the run and that's how you win stuff.

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.

In comment 14397793 NoGainDayne said:

Quote:

they are prioritizing running and stopping the run and that's how you win stuff. 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.

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)

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.

In comment 14397838 NoGainDayne said:

Quote:

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) 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.

players. Call him no nonsense or whatever you want but these days especially working with players or really talent in general to maximize their efficacy as opposed to being domineering is becoming more and more commonplace as it is the more effective tactic.

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.

In comment 14397904 NoGainDayne said:

Quote:

players. Call him no nonsense or whatever you want but these days especially working with players or really talent in general to maximize their efficacy as opposed to being domineering is becoming more and more commonplace as it is the more effective tactic. 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 )

he was still one of the top rated DL (not just DT) by PFF when he was traded

There most definitely were rumors about Snacks being dissatisfied when Reese and McAdoo were here:

Quote:

Ah yes the old Reese as the villain and DG as the hero 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.

Managing toward culture is an interesting topic. There were a number of genuine assholes on and off the field for the 07 and 11 championship teams -- I suspect the pedigree of coach had a major part in keeping the team together.

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.