Is this the week Shurmer realizes the best back in football needs to get the dam ball at least 30 times a game??
IMHO Feed the beast, make them stop him it will open up so much more and keep the D off the field. They need to establish a personality on Offence.
Is this the week Barkley is allowed to control the game?
6 of those 7 in the first half.
Should we lose, that is.
If Shurmur doesn’t want to give Barkley 25 carries that’s fine, but he needs to be featured in the passing game.
He needs at least 30 touches. Doesn’t really matter run/pass touches but he needs to be featured in the offense. Especially considering the fact Sheppard and Tate are out.
This game is about as close to a must-win as you can get in Week 2. No point saving Barkley. What would they be saving him for? You have him for what - five years? Seven? 2019 is Year two. Time to find out whether he can carry a sh!tty team to respectability, because the team figures to be sh!tty until about Year Four.
I think the Giants receivers and Eli will have to win this game, expect 8 in the box.
I do expect more than 15 touches this week, but with BUF loading the box I expect and rightfully so Eli to check out of runs as necessary.
25 total touches would be fantastic.
CMC touched the ball 30 times week 1 after one drive in preseason. Preseason has nothing to do with game shape. The fumble was just a perfect helmet hit to the ball where somehow the defender got lower than him even though Saquon had the ball like two feet off the ground. It happens.
Bark has the ability to break one regardless but no way are Giants just going to be able to just run Saquon on first and second down
Giants were 2 of 11 last week on 3rd down.
Shurmur is a strange dude. I don't think he is stupid but he certainly hasn't overwhelmed anybody with his smarts...
TE's involved so Barkley can get 20 or more rushing attempts
Buffalo will not be a pushover looks like a low scoring
slug-fest . It's a game they need to win establish
something at home .
Congrats for stumbling onto playcalling 101!
Yes, Barkley is the Giants' best weapon and the team would be better off giving him the ball more frequently. That said, teams run the ball less when they're losing. And the Giants have been losing a lot during Barkley's career.
My point is, you may be drawing a correlation where the causation is actually reversed. The Giants are running the ball less because they're losing, not losing because they're running the ball less.
Quote:
We are 1-9 when he has 15 or less carries.
Congrats for stumbling onto playcalling 101!
Yes, Barkley is the Giants' best weapon and the team would be better off giving him the ball more frequently. That said, teams run the ball less when they're losing. And the Giants have been losing a lot during Barkley's career.
My point is, you may be drawing a correlation where the causation is actually reversed. The Giants are running the ball less because they're losing, not losing because they're running the ball less.
Barkley was in on 80% (55) of the snaps (69) and touched the rock 16 times apprx 3.44 per play he was on the field for. Now not looking at solely stats and how the game played out slowing it down and running SB more was the best tactical move ... keep your D off the field and churn it out. We started off well, Shumur (and Bettcher) needs to learn how to adjust to the game vs the gameplan. There has to be talks while prepping on what adjustments will be made especially knowing the D is suspect. Utilize that new OL and Young Generational RB to pressure off the avg WR core and D that needs sometime to regroup and make adjustments. This game did not have to get out of hand the way it did.
Quote:
In comment 14574919 90.Cal said:
Quote:
We are 1-9 when he has 15 or less carries.
Congrats for stumbling onto playcalling 101!
Yes, Barkley is the Giants' best weapon and the team would be better off giving him the ball more frequently. That said, teams run the ball less when they're losing. And the Giants have been losing a lot during Barkley's career.
My point is, you may be drawing a correlation where the causation is actually reversed. The Giants are running the ball less because they're losing, not losing because they're running the ball less.
Barkley was in on 80% (55) of the snaps (69) and touched the rock 16 times apprx 3.44 per play he was on the field for. Now not looking at solely stats and how the game played out slowing it down and running SB more was the best tactical move ... keep your D off the field and churn it out. We started off well, Shumur (and Bettcher) needs to learn how to adjust to the game vs the gameplan. There has to be talks while prepping on what adjustments will be made especially knowing the D is suspect. Utilize that new OL and Young Generational RB to pressure off the avg WR core and D that needs sometime to regroup and make adjustments. This game did not have to get out of hand the way it did.
The poster I was replying to specifically referenced carries. Not touches. And while that seems like a semantic argument, with a back like Barkley, it's not. He's a weapon in the passing game obviously, so merely drawing a correlation between carries and wins strikes me as having the causation backwards.
That said, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that Barkley should have touched the ball more, or that running the ball more in general would have helped wear down their defense and keep ours off the field. But whenever people quote the correlation between a certain number of carries and winning the game, it's always a red flag.
It's the same as when people used to make the same claim about NBA teams, that those who shot the most 3's had the worst record - and they never even paused to consider that those bad teams were shooting 3's because they were always losing, not losing because they were shooting 3's.
Is that "Don't be so sure. Shurmur is not an idiot" or "Don't be so sure Shurmur is not an idiot?"
Seriously don’t understand the take it easy on Barks business. Makes zero sense from any perspective. Sadly, I don’t think Shurmur and his coaching staff are working some master plan to keep Saquon sharp for future campaigns. I think they’re just too fucking stupid to give him the ball. Hope I’m wrong.
If we are getting blown out every week, it won't be Shurmur that gets fired. Unless Shurmur loses the lockerroom, Shurmur's tenure is tied to Jones. If we are getting blown out all season, then Bettcher will be left holding the bag.
"They were expecting him to run and catch passes. He can help us in a variety of ways and this week we chose to utilize his skills as a protector."
P. Shurmer
What about next week?
Shurmer
It will reveal itself.
4-3 when he has more than 15 carries...domination
8 carries
310 yards