As some know, i am not anti-Gettleman; in fact, I was on the record as saying i would like him to stay, but with structural support that would get him more in line with 21st century football. With that said, I can’t believe he is quoting that stat about the top 4 running teams in total yards making the playoffs and the top 4 passing teams in total yards did not. Doesn’t he realize that total yards is a meaningless stat and that the real measuring stick is offensive efficiency and then when you break it down (besides the ravens) the playoff teams tend to be good at passing. I still like Gettleman and want him to succeed badly, love the hiring of Judge; but I just don’t think we are going to take a quantum leap in terms of analytics as long as DG is in charge.
I think there is something to what you are saying and that is when i made your argument to myself before i posted i said How easy is it to say to be an efficient passing offense you need to be able to run the ball efficiently. It seems like he wants to prove to everyone that he is right about the run being MORE IMPORTANT than passing as opposed to what judge said at his presser which is you have to be an efficient offense no matter how you get there (when he went though if we have to pass 45 times to win we will and if we have to run 45 times we will—which i loves from Judge’s presser)
1) he doesn’t understand statistics and has a fundamental misunderstanding about NFL winning football;
2) he knows better but has such disdain for the sort of hard core fans who would actually pay attention to the interview of an NFL GM that he thinks they will be convinced by bad stats.
Ignorance or arrogance. You choose.
People overthink this beyond belief.
Really because I doubt most nfl front offices use total yards as a benchmark. Second, he cited it, he saw a graphic and said hey that could bolster my point and the graphic is silly and meaningless. Would you invest in a company where the pitch is about “gross sales” without ever talking about profit margin and net profit?
The first step is to get ride of Chris Mara as VP of Player personnel.
Quote:
His batting average on personnel acquisitions has to improve. If it does, the team benefits , if not he goes sooner rather than later. His reputation in the league is at an all time low.
The first step is to get ride of Chris Mara as VP of Player personnel.
rid not ride
Quote:
Yes, total yards by itself isn't always the best way to judge a defense. Neither is just points allowed. However, whenever you talk about rankings most places use total yards as the way to rank offenses and defenses. There is nothing wrong with what he said except that KC is a top running team.
Really because I doubt most nfl front offices use total yards as a benchmark. Second, he cited it, he saw a graphic and said hey that could bolster my point and the graphic is silly and meaningless. Would you invest in a company where the pitch is about “gross sales” without ever talking about profit margin and net profit?
Again, when talking about how defenses are ranked, total yards is usually the way it is done. So, saying the top 4 team ... that is just trying to use common language to what is common for rankings. Nobody is saying other stats aren't more important. Holy shit.
Quote:
In comment 14773117 morrison40 said:
Quote:
His batting average on personnel acquisitions has to improve. If it does, the team benefits , if not he goes sooner rather than later. His reputation in the league is at an all time low.
The first step is to get ride of Chris Mara as VP of Player personnel.
rid not ride
He needs a one way ride to the horse tracks.
What's wrong about it is he quoted it as a defense of his approach to roster construction without even a cursory reference to the context of those stats. He acts as though leading the league in rushing is an airtight strategy to win, yet never so much as even suggests an understanding that the reverse is the underlying context: winning is what makes many teams reach the top of the league in rushing yards.
In that sense, the net result is that he's right that there is a correlation between running the ball and winning football games, but he demonstrates very little capacity for understanding what drives that correlation and how it should inform roster decisions.
It's a more complex version of Gettleman's simplest flaw: prioritizing offensive line yet becoming inexplicably attached to shitty offensive linemen.
Quote:
In comment 14773098 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
Yes, total yards by itself isn't always the best way to judge a defense. Neither is just points allowed. However, whenever you talk about rankings most places use total yards as the way to rank offenses and defenses. There is nothing wrong with what he said except that KC is a top running team.
Really because I doubt most nfl front offices use total yards as a benchmark. Second, he cited it, he saw a graphic and said hey that could bolster my point and the graphic is silly and meaningless. Would you invest in a company where the pitch is about “gross sales” without ever talking about profit margin and net profit?
Again, when talking about how defenses are ranked, total yards is usually the way it is done. So, saying the top 4 team ... that is just trying to use common language to what is common for rankings. Nobody is saying other stats aren't more important. Holy shit.
Actually that's precisely what Gettleman is doing when he neglects to mention that the playoff teams are almost universally among the top teams in passing efficiency. He clearly seems to prefer counting stats over rate stats - whether that's because he favors the simplicity of counting stats or doesn't quite understand the proper application of the appropriately data, or just because he's old school (he strikes me as the type of person who would probably be the sort of baseball fan to pay more attention to batting average than OBP, or to consider W-L the defining stat for a starting pitcher), it's irrelevant. He shows no interest in discussing the proper stats, which over time begins to suggest that he doesn't even pay attention to the right stats in the first place.
Whatever you say, Dave.
That would be great if he was at least a know it some.
They don't have to hire BBI. They can just stop letting DG be a mouthpiece for the organization. I have a hard time believing that he's actually as antiquated in practice as he is with his words, but he doesn't do himself any favors when he speaks.
He either thinks Giants fans are idiots, or he is one himself. I hope it's the former, though it's insulting. I can't say that with any confidence though, based on results to date.
1/9/20, 11:55 PM
It appears you lack of a basic understanding of basic football.. you Analytics told you who should've been in the playoffs. Real football tells us who is actually in the playoffs. And they are NOT the 4 top passing teams. Are you watching?
1/9/20, 11:55 PM
It appears you lack of a basic understanding of basic football.. you Analytics told you who should've been in the playoffs. Real football tells us who is actually in the playoffs. And they are NOT the 4 top passing teams. Are you watching?
This Banks quote was discussed yesterday.
And it's proof that Banks should stay in the TV booth and never be given a front office spot by a team seriously interested in winning...
Gettleman wasn't in the room because he hadn't been hired yet.
Think about who was in the room and who would have been giving Riddick that impression.
When Gettleman goes on about wanting the Giants to be a running team, he knows he is in tune with the only person who will ever keep him in an NFL job.
So why shouldn't he.
So yes the teams worst teams spend more time passing the ball and the best teams spend more time running out the clock. Hopefully he didn't waste too much of Mara's money paying a "computah guy" to come up with this nonsense.
So yes the teams worst teams spend more time passing the ball and the best teams spend more time running out the clock. Hopefully he didn't waste too much of Mara's money paying a "computah guy" to come up with this nonsense.
It's like the old sayings I grew up hearing....
1. "Points come from the passing game."
2. "Run to win. Throw to score."
I read into Gettleman's words because I feel he is saying what he believes and that is then driving decision making in terms of personnel. He's almost 70 years old. Why would he be acting? Who specifically is he bullshitting? Certainly not the better teams in the NFL.
Quote:
Ask anyone who plays fantasy football. Winning teams tend to be more conservative late in games to protect a lead. The team that is losing is usually chucking the ball downfield late in games to make a comeback. Garbage time yards count the same.
So yes the teams worst teams spend more time passing the ball and the best teams spend more time running out the clock. Hopefully he didn't waste too much of Mara's money paying a "computah guy" to come up with this nonsense.
It's like the old sayings I grew up hearing....
1. "Points come from the passing game."
2. "Run to win. Throw to score."
I read into Gettleman's words because I feel he is saying what he believes and that is then driving decision making in terms of personnel. He's almost 70 years old. Why would he be acting? Who specifically is he bullshitting? Certainly not the better teams in the NFL.
Yes, I can't stand Gettleman. I'm not saying he's wrong I'm saying that this is a very behind the times analysis of success. Like others have said on here, passing efficiency is a lot better of a metric.
I understand. Lol
It does prove his point or at least backs his vision. So yeah, maybe he is thumping his chest or maybe he is just trying to show that teams that successfully run the football and defend against the run win.
Some teams blow you out early by passing forcing the opposing team to pass to catch up while they run.
Anyways, I wish he'd practice what he'd preach and get the GMEN an O-LINe.
Carl Banks was a great player who played in an NFL that is considerably different than today's game. Unfortunately it sounds like his viewpoint is stuck in an era 30 years gone by...
It does prove his point or at least backs his vision. So yeah, maybe he is thumping his chest or maybe he is just trying to show that teams that successfully run the football and defend against the run win.
No. Just like Gettleman, you have the correlation backwards. Teams that are losing tend to throw the ball in a desperate attempt to catch up.
This should be obvious, but clearly it isn't. Hence, Gettleman continues to have an audience.
You successfully used italics the other day. Now learn how to use reply.