Game management at the end

Seconds is not enough for two clear shots in the endzone especially with the Bears rush.

In comment 14978544 Toth029 said:

Quote:

Seconds is not enough for two clear shots in the endzone especially with the Bears rush.

Sure it is.

All you have to do is have the first shot at the end zone take 7 seconds or less. And there's no reason it can't.

You don't need to complete the two plays in 8 seconds, you just need to complete the first in 7.

And improve the percentages at a shot into the end zone. They wouldn’t get two shots with 8 seconds

Why advance the ball and lose the real estate in order to guarantee only one more play left?

And if ANY holdups or little slip happens, that’s it. No second chance.

Doing a faux hail mary with one shot then. You can't roll out and create some space and separation by the receivers (Chicago only rushed three).

Rhe reason for the 5 yard pass is to get a better look on past play of game.


16 yards out in a two high look is rough...ten yards changes the depth of your routes.

I thought it qas wise to help set up one last play. Your "two shots" would come against a two hogh look with longwr developing routes.

No proboem at all with the calls.


The giants fought fucking hard as hell but second half it was all jones.

No barkley changes the entire dunamic of giants offebse.

In comment 14978584 glowrider said:

Quote:

And improve the percentages at a shot into the end zone. They wouldn’t get two shots with 8 seconds

Agreed. I would have been OK with throwing to the end zone instead of that short pass, but they kept the drive alive for one last play. There were also a lot of DBs on the field. A tipped INT was a real possibility.

.

They were at the what, 15 yard line?

2 shots att the end zone in 8 seconds is absolutely possible. The first shot at the end zone can take 7 seconds, even though it shouldn't take anywhere near that.

If you can't get two throws to the end zone with 8 seconds then your offense is a total joke.

2 shots at the end zone is much more valuable than taking 5 yards and then only having 1 shot. Why throw away 1 shot at the end zone?

Rushed 3 i think, dropped a lot of guys into coverage. I suspect DJ took a quick look, wasn’t there, unloaded to the sidelines.

Jones made the decision. Was it correct i don't know without seeing the film. But if his read was everyone else was covered, and lewis was left all along, why not pick of some yards and shorten the field. It's better than forcing the ball in there and getting picked off.

In comment 14978597 BleedBlue said:

Quote:

Rhe reason for the 5 yard pass is to get a better look on past play of game. 16 yards out in a two high look is rough...ten yards changes the depth of your routes. I thought it qas wise to help set up one last play. Your "two shots" would come against a two hogh look with longwr developing routes. No proboem at all with the calls. The giants fought fucking hard as hell but second half it was all jones. No barkley changes the entire dunamic of giants offebse.

100% agree

In comment 14978597 BleedBlue said:

Quote:

Rhe reason for the 5 yard pass is to get a better look on past play of game. 16 yards out in a two high look is rough...ten yards changes the depth of your routes. I thought it qas wise to help set up one last play. Your "two shots" would come against a two hogh look with longwr developing routes. No proboem at all with the calls. The giants fought fucking hard as hell but second half it was all jones. No barkley changes the entire dunamic of giants offebse.

Excellent analysis.

looked to the endzone quickly, and when no one was going to be wide open, he dumped it to shorten the field.

On the final play, though, he should have thrown it to someone in the endzone. Tate was probably only a decoy, unless he was wide open.

OP

Two shots at end zone.

the 15 yard line is perfect. The windows are wider. Getting an extra five yards not only wasted 4 seconds, a second opportunity at scoring, but also made the windows smaller and easier to cover for the Bears D.

whatever we gained by getting 5 yards it not worth losing 1 of only 2 remaining plays.

but the Giants offense without Barkley since Jones has been here has not been worse. Small sample size though. Barkley is a terrific talent but he just has not impacted games consistently the way a talent like him should. That's likely a comb9ination of coaching, Barkley himself, offensive line.

Ball on the 15 with ten seconds left -- that means two shots into the end zone.

Why the fuck did Daniel Jones complete a 5-yard pass to the 10 yard line burning six seconds?

That is a huge fucking mistake.

I don't think Garrett called that play to have Lewis be the number 1 options. It was an out. We ran to the end zone, Jones didn't like what he saw, and dumped it outside. It is what it is. I just don't get people supporting the call like that is exactly what Garrett wanted. Makes no sense.

In those last few minutes, Garrett was the calmest person for us on the team. Everyone else was rushed and harried. I think DJ needs more growing pains, and it's definitely frustrating.

I promise you, the only people who are going to complain about it are the know-nothings who frequent this board.

it seemed like a calculated move to get them in position for a higher percentage play, but I could be wrong.

has been underwhelming so far. Looks like the Cowboys have not missed a beat without him so far.

Was some of the dumbest shit you’ve ever seen? That play??? I didn’t love the play there but cmon dude, you’re exaggerating.

In comment 14978911 darren in pdx said:

Quote:

it seemed like a calculated move to get them in position for a higher percentage play, but I could be wrong.

You're not. Basic analytics. The odds of scoring a TD are higher the closer you are to the endzone.

In comment 14978934 BlackLight said:

Quote:

In comment 14978911 darren in pdx said: Quote: it seemed like a calculated move to get them in position for a higher percentage play, but I could be wrong. You're not. Basic analytics. The odds of scoring a TD are higher the closer you are to the endzone.

good point. Maybe we should have called ANOTHER 4 yard out before the last play to get a little closer!

In comment 14978584 glowrider said:

Quote:

And improve the percentages at a shot into the end zone. They wouldn’t get two shots with 8 seconds

When you're that close, with that little time remaining, shortening the field is actually a detriment.

In comment 14978934 BlackLight said:

Quote:

In comment 14978911 darren in pdx said: Quote: it seemed like a calculated move to get them in position for a higher percentage play, but I could be wrong. You're not. Basic analytics. The odds of scoring a TD are higher the closer you are to the endzone.

No, *basic analytics* is situation dependent. Proximity to the goal is a value that slides based on the game. Being closer to the goal tightens up the area that the opponent must defend, so there is a trade-off inherent to the yardage advancement. It's not linear, so it's not a situation where you can say that it's better to be farther away, but it's informative enough to observe that compressing the field benefits the defense in a similar way that it benefits the offense. If you're trading clock for no increase in scoring opportunity, you're giving away winning probability.

I'm sure Ty Siam is all over this. Whether or not he can explain it to DG is another story.

didn't have a problem with it. They took what the defense gave them on the play, with a chance to break one. Then they set themselves up for 1 manageable shot

In comment 14979051 Shady Lurker said:

Quote:

didn't have a problem with it. They took what the defense gave them on the play, with a chance to break one. Then they set themselves up for 1 manageable shot

The problem wasn't the underlying intent of the play, it was the play itself. It didn't appear to even be designed to score. That's problematic. Narrowing the verticality of the field is not to the offense's benefit in that scenario. Giving away time to earn a disadvantage is a pretty clear indication that the difference between NEP and NYG is Ernie Adams vs. Kevin Abrams.

In comment 14978934 BlackLight said:

Quote:

In comment 14978911 darren in pdx said: Quote: it seemed like a calculated move to get them in position for a higher percentage play, but I could be wrong. You're not. Basic analytics. The odds of scoring a TD are higher the closer you are to the endzone.

Well the question is does picking up what they did there increase your odds by at least 100%? Not sure the answer to that question, but I do know the fact it's 8 seconds and something could happen on the play leading it to be your last play making it one shot.

To nitpcik this is some asinine shit. I get fans are sick and tired of losing. It sucks, plus the shit sandwich with Barkley. But this team is showing signs for the first time since the defense was dominant in 2016.

In comment 14979065 Gatorade Dunk said:

Quote:

In comment 14979051 Shady Lurker said: Quote: didn't have a problem with it. They took what the defense gave them on the play, with a chance to break one. Then they set themselves up for 1 manageable shot The problem wasn't the underlying intent of the play, it was the play itself. It didn't appear to even be designed to score. That's problematic. Narrowing the verticality of the field is not to the offense's benefit in that scenario. Giving away time to earn a disadvantage is a pretty clear indication that the difference between NEP and NYG is Ernie Adams vs. Kevin Abrams.

I don't have the numbers, and I doubt either do you, but what I do know is that your chances to score drop off dramatacically and probably exponentially outside of the 8-10.

In comment 14979012 Enzo said:


good point. Maybe we should have called ANOTHER 4 yard out before the last play to get a little closer! [/quote]

If we had enough time to do that, then that'd be a good call too.

Given that we didn't, and given that you know we didn't, your comment just makes you a jackass, you jackass.

In comment 14979275 BlackLight said:

Quote:

In comment 14979012 Enzo said: good point. Maybe we should have called ANOTHER 4 yard out before the last play to get a little closer!

If we had enough time to do that, then that'd be a good call too.

Given that we didn't, and given that you know we didn't, your comment just makes you a jackass, you jackass. [/quote]
I think we can safely assume what you know about "analytics" can fit inside a thimble.

In comment 14978584 glowrider said:

Quote:

And improve the percentages at a shot into the end zone. They wouldn’t get two shots with 8 seconds

Agree...
We had a better chance to convert once we were closer. Of all of the bad calls by Garrett today... that was very low on my list.

Because that overpaid, overdrafted Defensive Line got pushed down the field for several big first downs as the Bears ran the ball down our throats.

Then they finally stop them only to be snake bit by a freak play when their olineman catches a 3rd down deflected pass.

And I know the Giants rotates a lot inside but when you franchise a guy for $17m or draft a guy at overall #17 make sure they are on the field when the game is on the line.

This team can’t not lose.

of whether a shot at the end zone from 10 yards has better odds than a shot at the end zone from 15. It's a question of whether ONE shot from the 10 beats the odds of TWO shots from the 15. And I doubt that it is.

Also taking two shots doubles your chances of getting a defensive penalty called.

I had no problem with it at the time. Yes maybe 2 shots at the end zone are better but from 15 yards out? Such a low percentage chance IMO. Also, it was possibly the best option reading the field after the snap (we’ll know this week I assume when some armchair GM “All 22”s us).

but I agree with Mook... from a football standpoint I just don't feel that devastated. What has he done to impact games for the good? I think we will be what we are - good or bad - with or without SB.

I am not 'down' on Garrett... but through all of these coaches/OC's we have had the past few years why does our offense never look appreciably different? We finally have a QB with some wheels and we rarely seem to design plays that incorporate his athleticism.

roll outs, bootlegs, RPO... something to keep the defense honest and perhaps stop them from just Teeing off on our OLine/RB/QB.

In comment 14979691 madeinstars said:

Quote:

of whether a shot at the end zone from 10 yards has better odds than a shot at the end zone from 15. It's a question of whether ONE shot from the 10 beats the odds of TWO shots from the 15. And I doubt that it is. Also taking two shots doubles your chances of getting a defensive penalty called.

Your last part is the first argument I have seen that makes a valid point about going for two shots. I still think being at the 10 for one shot is much better than two at the 15 but this is a good argument for that viewpoint

line is there is not a clear-cut solution. Either path has been both successful and unsuccessful.

The folly here is making it sound like a slam dunk decision. Foolish, but not surprising.

In comment 14979043 Gatorade Dunk said:

Quote:

In comment 14978934 BlackLight said: Quote: In comment 14978911 darren in pdx said: Quote: it seemed like a calculated move to get them in position for a higher percentage play, but I could be wrong. You're not. Basic analytics. The odds of scoring a TD are higher the closer you are to the endzone. No, *basic analytics* is situation dependent. Proximity to the goal is a value that slides based on the game. Being closer to the goal tightens up the area that the opponent must defend, so there is a trade-off inherent to the yardage advancement. It's not linear, so it's not a situation where you can say that it's better to be farther away, but it's informative enough to observe that compressing the field benefits the defense in a similar way that it benefits the offense. If you're trading clock for no increase in scoring opportunity, you're giving away winning probability. I'm sure Ty Siam is all over this. Whether or not he can explain it to DG is another story.

You are correct sir.