If you have seen any TV discussions on the New York Giants in the last few weeks, almost universally the same argument is made by every pundit:
"The Giants have done everything to surround Daniel Jones with talent. He is out of excuses. The fate of the team rests with him."
Then many of these same pundits use this as an opportunity to say they don't believe in Daniel Jones and that's why the Giants won't finish first in the NFC East.
While I do think there is a great deal of merit in what they say about how important QB play will be in determining the fate of the Giants, I'm surprised that none of these media discussions have addressed the elephant in the room:
For better or worse, the Giants did very little this offseason in addressing the offensive line, the well-known Achilles heel of the team for the past decade.
Kevin Zeitler was let go. Zach Fulton was added in free agency. Nate Solder returns as insurance depth. Jonotthan Harrison replaces Spencer Pulley as back-up center.
In other words, not much changed. As has been discussed nauseam on BBI, Gettleman and Judge are putting their faith in the new OL coaching (Rob Sale and Pat Flaherty) and the development of the young guys (Thomas, Lemieux, Gates, Peart, and even Hernandez).
But this argument that it is "all on Daniel Jones" doesn't address the fact that the franchise is taking a big gamble by standing pat on the OL. Now I'm optimistic about the OL, but if they don't make a big jump in their play, this offense is still going to have major issues. It won't be as bad as it was last year because the upgrade in the other skill positions has been so dramatic, but the OL still needs to keep Jones upright and open holes for Barkley and the other new running backs.
I just find it extremely odd that every pundit keeps saying, "it's all on Daniel Jones." I would argue, "much depends on Jones and the offensive line."
I mean you can just go ask any defensive coordinator on any football team. Playing the run defensively is much more tiring on your front 7. Even on a micro level, if a team is giving up 6 or 7 yards a clip on the ground and they match down the field it’s going to be awfully hard to flip the switch to stop it.
Quote:
Zeke — you’re making a number of broad assumptions there, out of curiosity any data to back that up?
I mean you can just go ask any defensive coordinator on any football team. Playing the run defensively is much more tiring on your front 7. Even on a micro level, if a team is giving up 6 or 7 yards a clip on the ground and they match down the field it’s going to be awfully hard to flip the switch to stop it.
See Baltimore.
The team ran for a franchise-record 404 yards in its 38-3 win over the Cincinnati Bengals on Sunday and finished the regular season with 3,071 yards. The effort came just 23 yards short of breaking the league’s all-time single-game mark of 426, set by the Detroit Lions in 1934, but the Ravens became one of just four teams since 1950 to rush for 400 yards in a game.
Ravens want to ‘take another step’ after historic 404-yard rushing performance in win over Bengals - ( New Window )
Quote:
Zeke — you’re making a number of broad assumptions there, out of curiosity any data to back that up?
I mean you can just go ask any defensive coordinator on any football team. Playing the run defensively is much more tiring on your front 7. Even on a micro level, if a team is giving up 6 or 7 yards a clip on the ground and they match down the field it’s going to be awfully hard to flip the switch to stop it.
Just curious if that’s fact based or your assumption.
Quote:
In comment 15272337 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
other players’ go up in a winning effort, that’s good.
You following?
If others go up, his won’t have to come down much, if any...
Unless the defenses are devoting resources to stopping him, thus thining out other areas of their defense creating opportunities for other players on offense.
If the offense is working correctly, Barkley shouldn’t be such a concentrated running target, especially early. He should be a threat to get the ball in any number of ways, just like several other guys.
Jackson has two advantages on Barkley:
1. He's a better open field runner
2. He gets to run from the QB position
In Barkley's rookie year an average play to him (rush or pass attempt) gained 5.3 yards...that is less than the league average play of 5.6 yards that season. Zeke's Alibi...if you think yards/play is an important stat (and I agree with you), think about that.
Compare that to Lamar Jackson's career average rush: 6.0 YPC. There is no comparison between the two players; bringing Baltimore up as an example is nice...but it's not applicable to the Giants in any way.
And that's if Barkley is completely healthy in 2021. I kind of agree with Bill2 - I think signs point to him not being much of a factor in 2021, and 2022 possibly being his last year here.
No, we are not Baltimore, but I'm sure they are developing their own system where they are a threat to run on nearly every play between Barkley/Jones/Toney and making defenses respect that. Which in and of itself will open up the passing game for all of the weapons there.
Baltimore has Lamar Jackson
Go Terps : 5/25/2021 11:15 pm : link : reply
We don't have anyone in his universe.
As a runner, agreed. As a passer, we have Clayton Thorson
While it is easier to pass the ball in the last ten years the game still is about physicality. You can pass your way to division titles and some advancement in the playoffs but the majority of times if you can't run the ball or stop it you are going to go home early. Good teams will take away what you do well and you better be balanced to overcome it.
"His 71 total missed tackles forced as a runner and receiver in 2018 were 11 more than any other running back. He was every bit as advertised during that rookie season — a year where he supplemented those broken tackle numbers with over 3.3 rushing yards after contact per attempt and 8.6 yards after the catch per reception."
So if he averaged 3.3 yards after contact that means 2/3 of his entire yardage on the ground came after being hit. Kind of a factor, no? As for the catches, it means he took many passes behind the LOS.
In sum, he can only do what the OC dictates and if he isn't lined up as a passer that isn't on him. Blame the play designs not the player, I don't know what more Barkley could have done.
Quote:
Baltimore has Lamar Jackson
Go Terps : 5/25/2021 11:15 pm : link : reply
We don't have anyone in his universe.
As a runner, agreed. As a passer, we have Clayton Thorson
Idiotic.
Quote:
Quote:
Baltimore has Lamar Jackson
Go Terps : 5/25/2021 11:15 pm : link : reply
We don't have anyone in his universe.
As a runner, agreed. As a passer, we have Clayton Thorson
Idiotic.
no, this is idiotic:
Jackson has two advantages on Barkley:
1. He's a better open field runner
why would that be idiotic? Is the idea going to be floated here that Jackson is a good passer of the ball? I mean, he's already the best RB in the history of the NFL, so why not add passer to that usual exaggeration?
Quote:
In comment 15272382 christian said:
Quote:
Zeke — you’re making a number of broad assumptions there, out of curiosity any data to back that up?
I mean you can just go ask any defensive coordinator on any football team. Playing the run defensively is much more tiring on your front 7. Even on a micro level, if a team is giving up 6 or 7 yards a clip on the ground and they match down the field it’s going to be awfully hard to flip the switch to stop it.
Quote:
The best three metrics in my mind are yards per play, total TD to TO ratio, and red zone scoring percentage. You finish type 5 in those and you are looking at a high seed in the playoffs. Paired with a competent D probably a bye.
Just curious if that’s fact based or your assumption.
The stats thing is an assumption, but one I’m fairly certain about. I’m not sure how a team is bad in NFL if you are killing those three metrics. If you have an example of one I’m all ears.
As far as the running the ball thing, it’s just what is considered common football knowledge, and decades of watching the game. When a team runs the ball 10 times for 60 yards down the field, good luck stopping them in red zone. See plenty of teams throw the ball down there stall out.
While it is easier to pass the ball in the last ten years the game still is about physicality. You can pass your way to division titles and some advancement in the playoffs but the majority of times if you can't run the ball or stop it you are going to go home early. Good teams will take away what you do well and you better be balanced to overcome it.
The two most prolific running attacks in the NFL the last few years have been the Ravens and Titans. And neither could advance beyond a certain point because they just couldn't score enough points by running.
So your theory about running the ball is very wobbly.
Look, I grew up on power/smash mouth football. I miss it dearly. But those concepts are relics. It's pass first, try to be efficient at running, and have an opportunistic defense that is stingy inside the red-zone.
There's about 3 or 4 QB's in the league who are going to regularly have success without being able to run the ball. Tannehill and Jackson aren't among them.
So for the other 25+ teams, being able to run will help and its up to the QB's to take advantage of that, or occasionally overcome a bad day running the ball.
Quote:
While it is easier to pass the ball in the last ten years the game still is about physicality. You can pass your way to division titles and some advancement in the playoffs but the majority of times if you can't run the ball or stop it you are going to go home early. Good teams will take away what you do well and you better be balanced to overcome it.
The two most prolific running attacks in the NFL the last few years have been the Ravens and Titans. And neither could advance beyond a certain point because they just couldn't score enough points by running.
So your theory about running the ball is very wobbly.
Look, I grew up on power/smash mouth football. I miss it dearly. But those concepts are relics. It's pass first, try to be efficient at running, and have an opportunistic defense that is stingy inside the red-zone.
This is a stupid debate. You need to great at some things and at least adequate at everything else. Find me one team that one a super bowl that was terrible at stopping the run and terrible at running the ball. There isn't one. There are teams that sucked at this throughout the season but then tightened shit up in the postseason, the 2006 Colts come to mind, but you aint winning shit in this league if you are soft at running and stopping the run.
The Ravens and Titans have been knocking on the door the last few years. But they cannot win one more game? Sure they can.
I know it's a very simple point and many won't agree, but I think this whole regular season vs postseason thing is overblown. It's the same game in January as in September. It's just tougher competition. If you can win in October against an elite team, you can win in January as well.
You need a QB that can block out the noise and make plays in the biggest of spots. Some QBs are great all the time. Others are up and down but can beat good or great defenses and seem to have the clutch gene. Those guys are almost impossible to truly identify until that moment arrives. How does anyone know if their QB who went 4400, 28 and 17 and won 11 games is truly a magical postseason player? Not until it happens does anyone know. And they can fail 2-3-4 times before they do break through. Then you have the prolific studs who never win a thing. You know don't know, until it's too late.
And if we utilize all three of those, it's going to open up a TON of options both on the ground, and in the air.
If you are going to talk about how the league is evolving than it would be unfair to not discuss how the running game has also evolved.
This is a stupid debate. You need to great at some things and at least adequate at everything else. Find me one team that one a super bowl that was terrible at stopping the run and terrible at running the ball. There isn't one. There are teams that sucked at this throughout the season but then tightened shit up in the postseason, the 2006 Colts come to mind, but you aint winning shit in this league if you are soft at running and stopping the run.
Where did I say you should abandon the run or not care about it on offense? I haven't. It's important, but it's just not the prime ingredient in the recipe to winning games/championships. Passing is.
Great. Let's stop the run on D. But winning on D will still come down to this - red-zone effectiveness. And forcing the other teams to kick FGs instead of scoring TDs.
Quote:
This is a stupid debate. You need to great at some things and at least adequate at everything else. Find me one team that one a super bowl that was terrible at stopping the run and terrible at running the ball. There isn't one. There are teams that sucked at this throughout the season but then tightened shit up in the postseason, the 2006 Colts come to mind, but you aint winning shit in this league if you are soft at running and stopping the run.
Where did I say you should abandon the run or not care about it on offense? I haven't. It's important, but it's just not the prime ingredient in the recipe to winning games/championships. Passing is.
Great. Let's stop the run on D. But winning on D will still come down to this - red-zone effectiveness. And forcing the other teams to kick FGs instead of scoring TDs.
Isn't taking away the run in the red zone and forcing them to be one dimensional part of red zone effectiveness? Or do you only stop the run between the 20's?
So why did those teams win 11-14 games while the Giants only won 6?
So why did those teams win 11-14 games while the Giants only won 6?
1. Daniel Jones didn't play well enough
2. Part of #1 is because our skill position players stunk
3. Take a look at the y/touch for Gallman and Morris (the exact argument you kill Barkley for) and let me know what you find.
4. Engram cost us 2 games
5. Are we really doing this again?
And yeah the guys playing in the conference finals are 4 of the top 6 guys in the league, no shit we need better QB play.
Quote:
While it is easier to pass the ball in the last ten years the game still is about physicality. You can pass your way to division titles and some advancement in the playoffs but the majority of times if you can't run the ball or stop it you are going to go home early. Good teams will take away what you do well and you better be balanced to overcome it.
The two most prolific running attacks in the NFL the last few years have been the Ravens and Titans. And neither could advance beyond a certain point because they just couldn't score enough points by running.
So your theory about running the ball is very wobbly.
Look, I grew up on power/smash mouth football. I miss it dearly. But those concepts are relics. It's pass first, try to be efficient at running, and have an opportunistic defense that is stingy inside the red-zone.
There is nothing wobbly about it. I said look at the playoffs and the teams ability to run. Pass happy teams who can't run often go home early. I preach being able to run and pass and they work together. You seem to be a studier of stats.
If you are going to throw out passing stats be sure to look at the teams ability to run the ball. In this case you made mention of teams scoring in the red zone. Look at where those teams were running the ball. Most were top 12 in rushing. Why is that important? Defenses have to defend differently in the red zone. They have to respect the run. They are vulnerable to play action. You post a stat. I see beyond. That is the difference.
Nobody seems to be suggesting that running the ball or stopping the run are not reasonably important parts of the game, and at times even critical. However, the Passing game has just simply become far more important overall to team success. An average running game, as long as efficient in terms of yards/carry and being able to operate play-action is sufficient.
Did 2/3 of Gallman's yards come after contact? If so i'll eat my hat.
Odd that a 300 yard reduction is called similar and a "troubling" sign, but then again that's the hyperbole needed to continue the narrative that Barkley just isn't effective, ain't it?
Now the Giants have added three targets to the passing arsenal. I am skeptical on Jones but with Barkley back, improvement in the OL and added WR's I think there is at least potential this offense shows significant improvement. Let's see how it plays out but at least defenses have significantly more to worry about.
Isn't taking away the run in the red zone and forcing them to be one dimensional part of red zone effectiveness? Or do you only stop the run between the 20's?
Of course it is. Let's stop them well before the scoring zone and force teams to punt. Count me in.
I really like our D and expect it to be even better in year two under Graham. So I'm looking forward to big things. But, IMV, they still need to be good at that "bend-but-don't-break" BB principle and force more FG attempts. Because the majority of teams will be able to move the ball inside the 20s.
Did 2/3 of Gallman's yards come after contact? If so i'll eat my hat.
Is that a straw hat? Leather hat, denim, corduroy? C'mon Uconn, details, details!
There is nothing wobbly about it. I said look at the playoffs and the teams ability to run. Pass happy teams who can't run often go home early. I preach being able to run and pass and they work together. You seem to be a studier of stats.
If you are going to throw out passing stats be sure to look at the teams ability to run the ball. In this case you made mention of teams scoring in the red zone. Look at where those teams were running the ball. Most were top 12 in rushing. Why is that important? Defenses have to defend differently in the red zone. They have to respect the run. They are vulnerable to play action. You post a stat. I see beyond. That is the difference.
I'm not disputing the ability and need to run effectively. I love it. But the trends dictate that passing is the primary way to score points - both in the regular season and in the playoffs.
So this isn't about being one dimensional and "pass happy". It's about understanding what is the best way to win in today's NFL. And passing is the ticket to success.
I'm being rhetorical here - but why do you think we went out and added more air support for Jones?
So we went out and got air support for Jones because passing is the way to win?? How about because our receiver group was poor. Why did we sign a RB? Why did we draft a RB? Isn't that kind of contradictory?
Why have we put resources into the OL, LB and DB's the past few years? To improve those position groups that have been poor. We're improving the team - not adding players just to join a NFL trend.
Quote:
There is nothing wobbly about it. I said look at the playoffs and the teams ability to run. Pass happy teams who can't run often go home early. I preach being able to run and pass and they work together. You seem to be a studier of stats.
If you are going to throw out passing stats be sure to look at the teams ability to run the ball. In this case you made mention of teams scoring in the red zone. Look at where those teams were running the ball. Most were top 12 in rushing. Why is that important? Defenses have to defend differently in the red zone. They have to respect the run. They are vulnerable to play action. You post a stat. I see beyond. That is the difference.
I'm not disputing the ability and need to run effectively. I love it. But the trends dictate that passing is the primary way to score points - both in the regular season and in the playoffs.
So this isn't about being one dimensional and "pass happy". It's about understanding what is the best way to win in today's NFL. And passing is the ticket to success.
I'm being rhetorical here - but why do you think we went out and added more air support for Jones?
I never said passing is not important. What I believe is that you have to be able to do both well. If you can't you will be exposed at some point. History has very few teams who were one dimensional that have won championships.
They, Leftwich and Arians, got trashed by the “experts” in the last third of the season for trying to establish the run. Came up huge in playoffs.
Over the previous 5 seasons, there have been 61 playoff teams. This is what a playoff team looks like, by production, run vs. pass.
2016 - 2020
Average Passing Yards: 3881
Average Passing TDs: 29
Average Rushing Yards: 1978
Average Rushing TDs: 16
Pro-Rated 17 Game Season
Average Passing Yards: 4123
Average Passing TDs: 31
Average Rushing Yards: 2101
Average Rushing TDs: 17
Prominent Outliers
- Only 4 teams have made the playoffs with fewer than 30 offensive TDs
- Only 2 teams have made the playoffs with more rush yards than pass yards
Observations
- In the three years Barkley has been a Giant, they have not hit the playoff averages in rush yards or rush TDs. The Giants need to run the ball better to be in "normal" playoff contention, let alone run-first.
- The 2:1 pass to rush yards and 2ish:1 pass to rush TDs, feels about right to me
- I suspect the attrition of a 17 game season will impact defenses more, and the true offensive average production will be higher
- The Giants offense needs to improve in both facets to be a "playoff" type team
They, Leftwich and Arians, got trashed by the “experts” in the last third of the season for trying to establish the run. Came up huge in playoffs.
Great point. Arians learned from the Bear well.
Its bizarre. Gallman was nearly there too, just 900+ more to go!
No one is saying this is a running league, we are saying they work in tandem and teams without elite QB's need significant help from the running game. When people post how often the elite QB's win all it proves is that I wish we had an elite QB.
But alas, we don't and no one is disputing that. Instead we are thinking of how Jones can excel more easily with a good running game and improved weapons. Why that sparks this much debate is beyond me. This is pretty straight forward.
Not only that but 1,700 is almost 2,000!!
I'd love posters to realize a 15% reduction in salary and see how many think that's almost what they're making now
This was in the 80's.
Interesting that playoff teams today are still around that 400 yard total. The majority rush for over 120 ypg with some outliers. So passing totals are a little higher but not nearly as dramatic as some tend to believe.
Giants need to add at least 75 yard to total production per game. I think we see it average out to 250 passing and 130 rypg which with their defense will win a lot of games.
Thanks. Another interesting angle -- the 2020 Giants were 90% of the way to playoff average in rush yards, and 78% in pass yards.
So I should amend my observation, the Giants have a lot of work in the pass game, and less in the run game.
I know that's now taboo around here making individual player predictions. But I find it useful nonetheless... ;)
I know that's now taboo around here making individual player predictions. But I find it useful nonetheless... ;)
Did you do it to validate the 30TD mark that you've been posting about as far back as the end of last year to match the math you did in the past month, Archimedes?
I also like Uconn's information indicating how often Barkley wasn't getting even adequate run blocking and still put up a monster rookie year.