The Giants have run the ball 32% of the time on offense -- that is dead last in the NFL. The average across 32 teams is 44%.
Everyone knows there's no magic formula as to how often a team should run vs pass. (And there is also a linkage with which play a team goes with more often -- such as, when you're ahead in the game in the 4th quarter, the tendency is to run the ball more; and just the opposite when a team is behind.)
So, what is "cause" and what is "effect" when it comes to winning?
But qualify the run/pass ratio anyway you want, it still boils down to this: The Giants will not play winning football carrying the rock less than one-third of the time.
IMO, there is potentially good news here, such as there is nowhere to go but up, and doing so will take a lot of pressure off our second year QB, and also give our defense -- which has played well so far -- a little more time on the bench.
Bottom line: It's practically a brand new offensive line that has played together for a mere two games. Give it a little more time, and I believe the run game will improve, as will our record.
Percentage offensive running plays to total plays (sorry for formatting)
LA Rams 57.7%
Baltimore 57.3%
LA Chargers 56.8%
New England 51.5%
Tennessee 50.4%
Cleveland 50.0%
Las Vegas 49.3%
Chicago 48.4%
Washington 48.0%
Green Bay 47.5%
San Francisco 47.4%
Indianapolis 46.6%
Arizona 46.6%
Seattle 44.2%
Minnesota 44.0%
Jacksonville 43.5%
New Orleans 43.4%
Denver 41.9%
Pittsburgh 41.6%
Carolina 41.5%
Kansas City 41.5%
Buffalo 40.4%
Tampa Bay 40.3%
Detroit 40.0%
Dallas 39.7%
NY Jets 39.6%
Miami 38.9%
Atlanta 37.7%
Houston 36.4%
Cincinnati 34.9%
Philadelphia 33.6%
NY Giants 31.9%
Average 44.2%
More normal scenario: Failed play action or stuffed run on first down, must pass on 2nd and 3rd down.
It’s hard to get a high percentage of run plays this way.
And can you create runs off of your passing game..those short qhick throws are loke run plays
2) except for the fluke bounce-pass vs. the Bears, we would have had 4 minutes and 2 timeouts to finish the game instead of 2 minutes and no timeouts. Huge difference.
Not to cherry pick but Houston has played KC and Baltimore.
In one game, the Giants had only one RB active, which will also hamper the running game.
It makes perfect sense really
It makes perfect sense really
Definitely a small sample size, and we played two good defenses.
But that's as far as I can agree with you. A team wouldn't decide NOT to run because it's O-line is young. After all, one could argue that pass blocking is just as tricky, especially with all the exotic NFL loops and stunts.
And as for 8-men in a box, that in no small way was created by the Giants going heavy with 2, if not 3, TEs. How about spreading things out a bit and running from that formation?
In any event, we need to run the ball more effectively which means our O-line needs to gel. And maybe there's no better way of gelling than to run more often!
The Giants ran the ball 37% of the time -- that was third to last in the NFL. The average across 32 teams was 43%.
These figures are very close to the current season (despite the tiny sample of just 2 games): Giants 32% running the ball, with the average across 32 teams 44%.
Again -- there's no magic ratio of run/pass that defines success. But it is an easy (and ugly) prediction to say we won't see winning football again until the Giants improve their run game.
Quote:
sample set. We played arguably the 2 best run defenses in the NFL. With a young OL, obviously we would have trouble running and try to pass more. Also teams are putting 8 in the box to stop Barkley, so again why run more than pass?
It makes perfect sense really
Definitely a small sample size, and we played two good defenses.
But that's as far as I can agree with you. A team wouldn't decide NOT to run because it's O-line is young. After all, one could argue that pass blocking is just as tricky, especially with all the exotic NFL loops and stunts.
And as for 8-men in a box, that in no small way was created by the Giants going heavy with 2, if not 3, TEs. How about spreading things out a bit and running from that formation?
In any event, we need to run the ball more effectively which means our O-line needs to gel. And maybe there's no better way of gelling than to run more often!
I don't think the Giants were concerning themselves during the game with the OL "gelling", the games were close and they were trying to win. So as the games went on they did more and more of what was working. The 2 TE and 3 TE was a response to the 8 in a box, run blitzing defense game plan. It did not cause it. They had to find some way to try and control the LOS>
-I watching Bill Walsh on one of those old football shows and he said the perfect offensive day would be 250 yard passing and 150 yards running.
-Many coaches follow a formula of rushing attempts and passing completions as a winning indicator. Lombardi I think wrote a article about this. Teams hitting 50 had like a .750 winning percentage.
I do think you have to consider that the better teams are able to run to close games out and your lesser teams are passing to catch up. Where the Giants stand though just shows me the challenge Jones has.
Quote:
on the bottom, they're all 0-2.
Not to cherry pick but Houston has played KC and Baltimore.
They're still 0-2, which means (at minimum) they are trailing in the 4th quarter with 1 or more drives where they are exclusively passing.
This would be more useful if it showed tendencies per quarter. Or at least excluded the 4th quarter when the team leading runs more than normal and the trailing team passes more than usual (sans blowouts where the balance might change in the 3rd).
Between running and passing. No doubt, NFL coaches would have different definitions of what they consider "balance," but they would all agree that running the ball 32% of the time, like our Giants, ain't balanced enough.
So many fans want the Giants to be "aggressive" and "pass happy", they are pass happy! But not happy, because they turn the ball over and lose.
Even if you run for 2 yards, or 1 yard, you have to keep running. Very few teams are able to come close to a 50-50 split, but those teams are in the Super Bowl. 30% run is not acceptable, even if you aren't averaging much. You have to run the ball, especially if you want DJ to live.
^^^^ This! Add to it the Giants should score more points and have fewer QB turnovers! Teams that score more and turn over the ball less often win more!
Quote:
Teams that run this play win more football games than teams that don’t.
^^^^ This! Add to it the Giants should score more points and have fewer QB turnovers! Teams that score more and turn over the ball less often win more!
Maybe having fewer QB turnovers would occur with an effective run game.
Not sure why people cannot see that.
Remember when Coughlin would preach balance as if having balance was the game plan?
Not sure why people cannot see that.
Remember when Coughlin would preach balance as if having balance was the game plan?
I think just about everyone on this thread would agree with your point about running the ball less when behind in a game, and/or game-planning.
But running and passing are complementary, and if the run game is a total disaster, the odds are better than 50/50 there will be trouble with the passing game as well.
And the reverse is true. Have fun trying to run the ball effectively when the pass game is a joke.
Totally in agreement.
Quote:
on the bottom, they're all 0-2.
Not to cherry pick but Houston has played KC and Baltimore.
It doesn't matter what your strength of schedule is. Fundamentally, if you are losing (no matter how good your opponent is presumed to be), you are more likely to abandon the running game.
This is a conversation where people tend to mistake the effect with the cause. Bad teams don't lose solely because they can't run the ball successfully; much more often, they stop running the ball because they're losing.
In the Giants' case, we have seen them struggle to generate a running game, so we know this isn't purely a gameflow issue. But in general, if all teams' ability to run the ball were equal, the teams with better records will be more likely to have a higher frequency of running plays.
However, I think the league has declared the recipe for playing the Giants - totally commit to shutting down the run and force Jones to prove he can win games.
I'd like to see more designed runs with Jones and take even more advantage of his athleticism. I think that would help loosen things up a bit when the D has to account for that...
Quote:
In comment 14982784 AcesUp said:
Quote:
Teams that run this play win more football games than teams that don’t.
^^^^ This! Add to it the Giants should score more points and have fewer QB turnovers! Teams that score more and turn over the ball less often win more!
Maybe having fewer QB turnovers would occur with an effective run game.
Your OP doesn't track running game effectiveness or efficiency; it tracks frequency.
You can run the ball 100% of the time, get no yards, go 3-and-out on every series, and lose every game 35-0. Your team will be at the top of the list you posted, but it won't be successful.
I think we all agree that you need an effective running game in order to be successful - it's much harder to win when you're one-dimensional in any facet - but that's not what your OP detailed. It simply shows how often teams are running the ball, not how well. You're the one drawing a conclusion that wasn't in your post.
Quote:
In comment 14982903 BlueLou'sBack said:
Quote:
In comment 14982784 AcesUp said:
Quote:
Teams that run this play win more football games than teams that don’t.
^^^^ This! Add to it the Giants should score more points and have fewer QB turnovers! Teams that score more and turn over the ball less often win more!
Maybe having fewer QB turnovers would occur with an effective run game.
Your OP doesn't track running game effectiveness or efficiency; it tracks frequency.
You can run the ball 100% of the time, get no yards, go 3-and-out on every series, and lose every game 35-0. Your team will be at the top of the list you posted, but it won't be successful.
I think we all agree that you need an effective running game in order to be successful - it's much harder to win when you're one-dimensional in any facet - but that's not what your OP detailed. It simply shows how often teams are running the ball, not how well. You're the one drawing a conclusion that wasn't in your post.
I was with you there, except at the end. When a team is dead-last in percentage of running plays, the odds are very strong they are neither running the ball effectively nor efficiently.
I stand by my conclusions:
(1) Winning football is probably not in the cards when a team is dead last is percentage of running plays;
(2) The Giants have no where to go but up, and I can see this team turning things around.
Quote:
In comment 14982922 M.S. said:
Quote:
In comment 14982903 BlueLou'sBack said:
Quote:
In comment 14982784 AcesUp said:
Quote:
Teams that run this play win more football games than teams that don’t.
^^^^ This! Add to it the Giants should score more points and have fewer QB turnovers! Teams that score more and turn over the ball less often win more!
Maybe having fewer QB turnovers would occur with an effective run game.
Your OP doesn't track running game effectiveness or efficiency; it tracks frequency.
You can run the ball 100% of the time, get no yards, go 3-and-out on every series, and lose every game 35-0. Your team will be at the top of the list you posted, but it won't be successful.
I think we all agree that you need an effective running game in order to be successful - it's much harder to win when you're one-dimensional in any facet - but that's not what your OP detailed. It simply shows how often teams are running the ball, not how well. You're the one drawing a conclusion that wasn't in your post.
I was with you there, except at the end. When a team is dead-last in percentage of running plays, the odds are very strong they are neither running the ball effectively nor efficiently.
I stand by my conclusions:
(1) Winning football is probably not in the cards when a team is dead last is percentage of running plays;
(2) The Giants have no where to go but up, and I can see this team turning things around.
It's not about "odds are" especially when you're dealing with a causality/correlation issue. The list you posted is purely about frequency, not effectiveness. The n is only one data point, and it's really not one that should be used for thoughtful analysis, especially with a small sample size in general.
A team that is dead last in running plays is probably a losing team, we agree on that. But they're probably dead last in running plays because they're a losing team, not vice versa.
Quote:
In comment 14983184 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14982922 M.S. said:
Quote:
In comment 14982903 BlueLou'sBack said:
Quote:
In comment 14982784 AcesUp said:
Quote:
Teams that run this play win more football games than teams that don’t.
^^^^ This! Add to it the Giants should score more points and have fewer QB turnovers! Teams that score more and turn over the ball less often win more!
Maybe having fewer QB turnovers would occur with an effective run game.
Your OP doesn't track running game effectiveness or efficiency; it tracks frequency.
You can run the ball 100% of the time, get no yards, go 3-and-out on every series, and lose every game 35-0. Your team will be at the top of the list you posted, but it won't be successful.
I think we all agree that you need an effective running game in order to be successful - it's much harder to win when you're one-dimensional in any facet - but that's not what your OP detailed. It simply shows how often teams are running the ball, not how well. You're the one drawing a conclusion that wasn't in your post.
I was with you there, except at the end. When a team is dead-last in percentage of running plays, the odds are very strong they are neither running the ball effectively nor efficiently.
I stand by my conclusions:
(1) Winning football is probably not in the cards when a team is dead last is percentage of running plays;
(2) The Giants have no where to go but up, and I can see this team turning things around.
It's not about "odds are" especially when you're dealing with a causality/correlation issue. The list you posted is purely about frequency, not effectiveness. The n is only one data point, and it's really not one that should be used for thoughtful analysis, especially with a small sample size in general.
A team that is dead last in running plays is probably a losing team, we agree on that. But they're probably dead last in running plays because they're a losing team, not vice versa.
I agree with you, and I agreed with you before you even wrote this last post of yours. My thread starter is explicit about cause and effect -- here it is:
******************************************************************************************************************
Everyone knows there's no magic formula as to how often a team should run vs pass. (And there is also a linkage with which play a team goes with more often -- such as, when you're ahead in the game in the 4th quarter, the tendency is to run the ball more; and just the opposite when a team is behind.)
So, what is "cause" and what is "effect" when it comes to winning?
******************************************************************************************************************