this has been a concern of mine despite him being sharp and having good leadership skills.
4th and 5 from the 37 to open the game. Jones looking like he could gash the defense for runs if needed. Offense on a roll from last week. Kicking a 54 yard field goal. That wasn't a good "feel" for the game. You have to know Dallas is going to march it up and down the field on your team. Your only shot is a confident offense with it's foot on the gas for 60 mins. That "feel" for the game BS is garbage. There was no feel. JJ played it too conservatively which is not a rarity for him and we watched another season collapse as a result.
Bad call. Bad analytics. Bad "feel." Even Mike McCarthy has this shit figured out. You see more and more teams converting 4th downs in their OWN territory and we can't even do it in the situations teams have understood for years.
The idea that the Giants "get" numbers when the numbers so often add up against them is ridiculous.
Sadly this case is becoming more and more clear that JJ wasn't brought in to change things but convince us that we were in good hands so Jints central could stay stuck in the past.
That's not leadership. That's lack of leadership.
He's not a leader. He's mimicking what jag offs like him, think leadership looks like.
He was also a longshoreman by trade.
there were red flags there last season too, as early as when he had to fire colombo for punching him in the face
They had all the pieces they came back against a better Saints defense with. A 54 yard field goal isn't "taking the points" demonstrated by the fact that it was a miss. We aren't talking about 4th and 12 from the 30 here. Dallas doesn't have a great D so the conversion rates aren't that far off.
It may be he is more of the former than the latter. Offense, defense and ST are all his domain. He is in charge of all of it. I understand the injuries on offense. But the strategy, play calling and use of timeouts has been poor. I also don't understand how they couldn't find a role for the best WR on the team against WFT and AT. But the defense is even worse in my opinion. There is talent there but no credible scheme whatsoever. Every defense in the NFL plays tighter to the LOS. Every one.
He will get this year and next in all likelihood. I hope he improves....and becomes that person behind the scenes that we hoped he would be. We can't know...but I don't see it.
It was their 37 yard line and yes the numbers say that is a good idea.
I wouldn't be saying that. I you go for it on both 4th and 5's and you likely have at LEAST 7 points instead of 3. Totally different game that way.
Not going for it early...that decision making I feel is filtering down to the rest of the staff/team and why this team just looks so uninspired.
It's not like we are some SB contending team, have some damn fun out there and let your players play!!!
Quote:
With our patched together piece of crap line you want to go for it inside our territory in the first quarter? That's not analytics that is delusion.
It was their 37 yard line and yes the numbers say that is a good idea.
Agreed. I was yelling right away they should go for it. As I said on another thread, as compared to the gutless decision to punt against the skins from about the same spot....this was actually aggressive for Joe Judge...but it was equally stupid given the situation.
Field Goals were not going to win that game and a 54 yarder is not a high percentage kick, even if you trust Gano. In that situation, I'd rather take a shot at the first down and at WORST...likely at least hand the ball back to the Cowboys in worse field position then a missed FG. The 3 points were not going to be the difference in winning or losing that game. Just stupid and gutless.
I don't think so.
We don't score a lot. You don't pass up a chance at a TD there.
Quote:
In comment 15408763 JerseyCityJoe said:
Quote:
With our patched together piece of crap line you want to go for it inside our territory in the first quarter? That's not analytics that is delusion.
It was their 37 yard line and yes the numbers say that is a good idea.
Agreed. I was yelling right away they should go for it. As I said on another thread, as compared to the gutless decision to punt against the skins from about the same spot....this was actually aggressive for Joe Judge...but it was equally stupid given the situation.
Field Goals were not going to win that game and a 54 yarder is not a high percentage kick, even if you trust Gano. In that situation, I'd rather take a shot at the first down and at WORST...likely at least hand the ball back to the Cowboys in worse field position then a missed FG. The 3 points were not going to be the difference in winning or losing that game. Just stupid and gutless.
Sorry. The first gutless punt from inside the opponents' 40 was against the Falcons.
The gutless move against WFT was playing for a FG when they took over possession inside of WFT territory after the INT.
Bad move....there were better ways to handle it.
Bad move....there were better ways to handle it.
On the other hand, you can't have your last remaining offensive weapon get himself thrown out of a game, not to mention risking breaking his hand, with a stupid move like that.
Hint - nobody is winning by attempting 54-yard FGs on 4th-and-5 less than 5 minutes into the game.
Even if the odds of making a kick of that length are good, making it at that stage of the game does very little to increase your odds of winning.
Quote:
On the 4ht down I'm sure all the posters on here complaining that he should've gone for it would be saying "You can't come away with nothing there this early."
I don't think so.
We don't score a lot. You don't pass up a chance at a TD there.
Yeah right. We put up 29 points vs Wash and 27 points vs New Orleans and we go into the game thinking "that we don't score a lot."
Especially for a guy like Jones whose performance widely fluctuates based on confidence it helps to give him those opportunities.
Especially for a guy like Jones whose performance widely fluctuates based on confidence it helps to give him those opportunities.
What are you telling your defense when you feel like you have to go for it so often the way posters seem to want to do?
All of us are not accountable for being okay with gambling.
And how does it help the team if you feel your offense sucks so bad that your chances on making it are probably minimal. How does that help?
And while the offense overall has not been great you have to try to ride that momentum and confidence from the last game where they did actually play very well, especially at the end.
On the other hand, you can't have your last remaining offensive weapon get himself thrown out of a game, not to mention risking breaking his hand, with a stupid move like that.
Agreed....but there were other ways than shouting MFer a bunch of times in front of the camera and team and practically shoving him to the locker room. LW hits after the whistle a few plays later...and no reaction.
Quote:
On the other hand, you can't have your last remaining offensive weapon get himself thrown out of a game, not to mention risking breaking his hand, with a stupid move like that.
Agreed....but there were other ways than shouting MFer a bunch of times in front of the camera and team and practically shoving him to the locker room. LW hits after the whistle a few plays later...and no reaction.
I'm pretty sure Toney has heard MF'er before.
Probably even used it a few times himself.
And while the offense overall has not been great you have to try to ride that momentum and confidence from the last game where they did actually play very well, especially at the end.
But he usually doesn't miss. If you are playing odds that fg you feel he is going to connect a lot.
On the flip side, the offense imo the chance they make is not good.
So how is that better?
I don't agree with the subjectivity of "ride the momentum." Vs "playing the odds" though I realize maybe that is subjective. Maybe a though is "riding the momentum" is the odds. This wasn't "4th and a foot."
But I believe an erratic offensive team you can't trust is not a good idea to giveaway points. And odds were that the fg was going to be made vs the odds being that we wouldn't have made 4th down.
Numbers already say go, pretty firmly actually.
Interesting about this is not only does it say go for it it also says the better your kicker is the more you should go for it. (I believe that is because of the almost automatic nature of closer field goals now)
Kickers are forever - ( New Window )
I had a much bigger problem with them folding up the tent before half - again. Use the stupid timeouts and throw the ball downfield. Get yourself a kick or a hailmary. Nothing to lose even with Glennon.
Quote:
other coaches like the one on the other side is giving their offense opportunities to dictate to their opponents. You help your offense by showing them you have faith in them there to get it, even if they don't.
Especially for a guy like Jones whose performance widely fluctuates based on confidence it helps to give him those opportunities.
What are you telling your defense when you feel like you have to go for it so often the way posters seem to want to do?
I think defenses like when their offense is aggressive and tries for TDs over FGs...but that's just me lol
In reality, I think most defenses aren't paying that much attention to what the offense is doing - they look at the end result.
The NFL is changing. Going for it now on 4th downs is more common place in such situations. You see it every game.
Quote:
In comment 15408713 giantstock said:
Quote:
On the 4ht down I'm sure all the posters on here complaining that he should've gone for it would be saying "You can't come away with nothing there this early."
I don't think so.
We don't score a lot. You don't pass up a chance at a TD there.
Yeah right. We put up 29 points vs Wash and 27 points vs New Orleans and we go into the game thinking "that we don't score a lot."
We also put up low totals versus Denver and ATL, and let's face it, scoring TDs is the teams #1 issue.
Also worth noting that while 29 and 27 are well above average for the Giants, by modern NFL standards nobody would describe either as a "lot" of points.
Quote:
In comment 15408813 BillKo said:
Quote:
In comment 15408713 giantstock said:
Quote:
On the 4ht down I'm sure all the posters on here complaining that he should've gone for it would be saying "You can't come away with nothing there this early."
I don't think so.
We don't score a lot. You don't pass up a chance at a TD there.
Yeah right. We put up 29 points vs Wash and 27 points vs New Orleans and we go into the game thinking "that we don't score a lot."
We also put up low totals versus Denver and ATL, and let's face it, scoring TDs is the teams #1 issue.
So two games out of the 1st 4 we did score a lot of points, right?
You said "We don't score a lot of points." Yet you agree with me now that in 2 out of the first 4 leading up to this game that we did score a lot of points, right?
Quote:
WFT is allowing 31 ppg to their opponents. So our 29 was below average against them.
Also worth noting that while 29 and 27 are well above average for the Giants, by modern NFL standards nobody would describe either as a "lot" of points.
agree. And let's not forge they only got in the endzone 2 times in that game.
Quote:
In comment 15408986 NoGainDayne said:
Quote:
other coaches like the one on the other side is giving their offense opportunities to dictate to their opponents. You help your offense by showing them you have faith in them there to get it, even if they don't.
Especially for a guy like Jones whose performance widely fluctuates based on confidence it helps to give him those opportunities.
What are you telling your defense when you feel like you have to go for it so often the way posters seem to want to do?
I think defenses like when their offense is aggressive and tries for TDs over FGs...but that's just me lol
In reality, I think most defenses aren't paying that much attention to what the offense is doing - they look at the end result.
The NFL is changing. Going for it now on 4th downs is more common place in such situations. You see it every game.
I don't agree. I think the really good teams only take chances on 4th downs (if not desperation) when they feel they have superior chances that they'll make the 1st down rather than the alternative. IMO that's what the very good NFL teams will do in any era.
Quote:
In comment 15409254 Giantfan in skinland said:
Quote:
WFT is allowing 31 ppg to their opponents. So our 29 was below average against them.
Also worth noting that while 29 and 27 are well above average for the Giants, by modern NFL standards nobody would describe either as a "lot" of points.
agree. And let's not forge they only got in the endzone 2 times in that game.
Average league scoring is 23.7 - Giants SCORED 27 and 29. Now what they score doesn't count? That's how the narrative gets changed now?
Sure Ok. LOL.
And while the offense overall has not been great you have to try to ride that momentum and confidence from the last game where they did actually play very well, especially at the end.
When did you see the Bengals go for it on 4th and 12? Was it vs Green Bay? When did they go for it in the game?
And they are the standard to make decisions?
And The Giants offense is as good as theirs?
Not arguing but we're all in agreement that Jones is as good as Burrow otherwise it's different issue with Cinci vs Giants, isn't it?
Quote:
In comment 15409264 rsjem1979 said:
Quote:
In comment 15409254 Giantfan in skinland said:
Quote:
WFT is allowing 31 ppg to their opponents. So our 29 was below average against them.
Also worth noting that while 29 and 27 are well above average for the Giants, by modern NFL standards nobody would describe either as a "lot" of points.
agree. And let's not forge they only got in the endzone 2 times in that game.
Average league scoring is 23.7 - Giants SCORED 27 and 29. Now what they score doesn't count? That's how the narrative gets changed now?
Sure Ok. LOL.
keep defending this team. Seriously. It's a really good look for you!
Quote:
In comment 15408975 giantstock said:
Quote:
In comment 15408813 BillKo said:
Quote:
In comment 15408713 giantstock said:
Quote:
On the 4ht down I'm sure all the posters on here complaining that he should've gone for it would be saying "You can't come away with nothing there this early."
I don't think so.
We don't score a lot. You don't pass up a chance at a TD there.
Yeah right. We put up 29 points vs Wash and 27 points vs New Orleans and we go into the game thinking "that we don't score a lot."
We also put up low totals versus Denver and ATL, and let's face it, scoring TDs is the teams #1 issue.
So two games out of the 1st 4 we did score a lot of points, right?
You said "We don't score a lot of points." Yet you agree with me now that in 2 out of the first 4 leading up to this game that we did score a lot of points, right?
2 out of 4 yes.
And a third where they hit only 21 in regulation.
And a fourth where they scored only 20.
Average: 21 pts per game.
Offense is an issue.
In some scenarios it did and others it appeared not to:
backing out the logic for their counter intuitive claim that the odds suggest kicking less with better kickers, the only thing I can figure is that since it's easier to make FGs now (with better kickers) you are bypassing a less rare (the FG). I.e. it's now easier to get a FG so there's less reason to settle for one.
I actually agree with that in theory and really would go for it most of the time. But as I said in my most in this case I wouldn't have unless it was 4th and 1. Even if it's psychological, I think it's the right call to get the zero off the scoreboard as a road dog. Picking up 3 points off a turnover after deferring the opening kick would have been a good start and if trends from the kicker accuracy chart have continued since that article was published Gano's odds of making it were probably > 75%.
Quote:
In comment 15409246 BillKo said:
Quote:
In comment 15408975 giantstock said:
Quote:
In comment 15408813 BillKo said:
Quote:
In comment 15408713 giantstock said:
Quote:
On the 4ht down I'm sure all the posters on here complaining that he should've gone for it would be saying "You can't come away with nothing there this early."
I don't think so.
We don't score a lot. You don't pass up a chance at a TD there.
Yeah right. We put up 29 points vs Wash and 27 points vs New Orleans and we go into the game thinking "that we don't score a lot."
We also put up low totals versus Denver and ATL, and let's face it, scoring TDs is the teams #1 issue.
So two games out of the 1st 4 we did score a lot of points, right?
You said "We don't score a lot of points." Yet you agree with me now that in 2 out of the first 4 leading up to this game that we did score a lot of points, right?
2 out of 4 yes.
And a third where they hit only 21 in regulation.
And a fourth where they scored only 20.
Average: 21 pts per game.
Offense is an issue.
Further compounded that in Games 1 and yesterday, there were garbage time TDs to inflate the average.
So 2 out of 5 we did some scoring.
Issue?
Numbers already say go, pretty firmly actually.
Interesting about this is not only does it say go for it it also says the better your kicker is the more you should go for it. (I believe that is because of the almost automatic nature of closer field goals now)
Are these the same analysts and data that says after every TD score to go for a 2 point conversion? How many teams folw that? If the league doesn't follwo that then why is the data you are presenting any different?
No offense and I appreciate this civil discussion but IMO it's because the stats you are providing is not taking "all circumstances" correctly.
I read a comment recently from a very successful analyst (not in football) that rather succinctly points out that you need a model that takes everything into account. Home vs Away. The team you are playing against. Injuries. Weather. Current score etc. It seems like the guy that you are reading this analysis from has a narrative and he fits data to fit his narrative.
Tell me why NFL teams don't go for 2 point conversions all the time. They are "all" wrong? Just like the guy you provide a a link. I'm much more of a hoop data fan and I think from same 538 they tried to show how Rodman was a greater rebounder than Wilt and Russell. This is the type of data I see. For example, I don't seem to recall Tamp Bay going for a lot of 4th and 5';s. It seems it's cooler to gamble while not being accountable.
Quote:
The math indicates that the better your FG kicker is it tilts the expected points math more in favor of going for it there...
In some scenarios it did and others it appeared not to:
Quote:
While the updated version still concluded that coaches were too conservative (particularly on fourth-and-short), it found that coaches were (very slightly) making more correct decisions than the 4th Down Bot.
backing out the logic for their counter intuitive claim that the odds suggest kicking less with better kickers, the only thing I can figure is that since it's easier to make FGs now (with better kickers) you are bypassing a less rare (the FG). I.e. it's now easier to get a FG so there's less reason to settle for one.
I actually agree with that in theory and really would go for it most of the time. But as I said in my most in this case I wouldn't have unless it was 4th and 1. Even if it's psychological, I think it's the right call to get the zero off the scoreboard as a road dog. Picking up 3 points off a turnover after deferring the opening kick would have been a good start and if trends from the kicker accuracy chart have continued since that article was published Gano's odds of making it were probably > 75%.
Definitely seems like the almost automatic nature of kicks 50 and below for a good kicker is where those probabilities are coming from either way the higher math seems to favor going for it.
I'm not a slave to that but I just don't think the field goal does much psychologically especially when you are telling your offense that you don't believe in it. I can see your perspective though.
What I tend to think (and how I've seen football critiques levied fairly evenly over the years) is that when you go against conventional wisdom you better be right. I think the conventional wisdom now has flipped towards going with that math. And JJ in this case and in many cases seems to be going against the conventional wisdom and being wrong and that not only makes you look bad at a league level it has larger ripple affects where you savvier players can lose motivation.
The larger point to me seems to be, if the higher level results aren't working for you like when you look at your record? And you continuing to lose close games. Why not start going with the higher math more?