I’m reading many predicting 4-5 wins. That is totally illogical.
We won 6 last year…6 with all the Injuries we had. We could have won 8 if we even had a healthy kicker. See the Jets and Rams games. Think about that….8 wins or 9 if you include the Bills game…..
Yet look at the cards dealt to us:
- playing with 3 QBs;
- no Andrew Thomas for 5-6 games.;
- the worst OL by far last year giving up a million sacks;
- not to mention the trading away of a great DT, Leonard Williams, which led to teams running wild against us after his departure.
-And don’t forget how difficult the schedule was for us.
So from the last game until now, don’t you think we have improved considerably? I do- many “wise so called experts” are praising us for our draft picks and even our free agency transactions which of course includes the great BBurns. Not to mention all the coaching changes, which I think many of us agree, are upgrades and should coach up our players better.
So how do you forecast 4-5 wins after all of this? How can you forecast us doing worse than last year?
Too many Debbie Downers on this site. Go Big Blue!
Quote:
In comment 16522909 Go Terps said:
Quote:
You don't see anyone saying the Giants could go 14-3.
Yeah - find me what team is predicted to win 14 games.
Best Chances - Chiefs, Ravens, 49ers...and in AFCN I think 11 or 12 wins that division..
Fine - I don't see anyone saying they can win 12 games.
The expectation should be 10 wins, minimum.
Quote:
"So we should win more games next year."
Here's the problem with that argument: every team feels they got better this time of year.
And some, if not most, actually did, and a few will be significantly better.
The Commanders got Jayden Daniels, who is a nightmare to defend. One of the most not-talked-about-enough aspects of the coming season is that Daniels is going to transform that team and that the Giants are now probably behind the Commanders.
But forget the fact that Daniels is going to step into the league and be one of the most dangerous QBs as a runner in the NFL on day 1, but what ehe can do with McLaurin, Dotson, Ben Sinnott, and Luke McCaffrey... that's a dangerous, not to mention Austin Ekeler and Zack Ertz, I think the Commanders have not just moved ahead of the Giants but Dallas as well.
Underestimate Daniels and his impact at your own peril.
Daniels will not have the extreme advantage at WR he had at LSU over almost all teams. I think you are vastly overrating the Commanders WRs. I think the Giants now have better receivers.
Yes Daniels can run. That will be abig upgrade for them. But let's not put JD on the Pro Bowl Team yet.
It's a mistake to assume his success was even mostly related to his receivers. He broke records. McLaurin and Dotson can get open. He will get them the ball. And McCaffrey has some real quickness to get free in the slot. I think McCaffrey would've been talked about a lot more as a slot receiver draft prospect is Ladd McConkey wasn't getting all the attention he did.
Sinnott has drawn a ton of comparisons to LaPorta.
When I studied Daniels, he made tons of throws that were right in the basket or in tight spots with good coverage where only his receiver could make the play. He's not a slouch as a passer. If they had a lot of contested catch guys on that team I would say there may be more concern about him going into the year. But the trio of receivers they have at the top are quick and fast separators, this will play into his strengths.
in 2023 the team o/u was 7.5 wins, they got 6.
their 2 year o/u was 14.5.
their 2 year win total was 15.
one year they got all the breaks, one year all the breaks went against them.
in 2024 the natural progression of this team should be something like 8+ wins. it is year 3, the coaching staff and FO should be another year more experienced and had another full draft class to add to the talent base. they were able to spend more money on the team this year, not less. the schedule is easier than 2023 though not as easy as 2022.
as the thread implies, the amount of regression mainstream regression being baked is irrational. It is fear combined with recency bias (plus some longer term bias that should have no bearing on this regime).
Keep the first 2 seasons outcomes exactly the same but reverse them chronologically and this team's O/U would be right around HOU (9.5), GB (9.5), JAX (8.5), IND (8.5).
You are correct and that’s about where we should be right now.
in 2023 the team o/u was 7.5 wins, they got 6.
their 2 year o/u was 14.5.
their 2 year win total was 15.
one year they got all the breaks, one year all the breaks went against them.
in 2024 the natural progression of this team should be something like 8+ wins. it is year 3, the coaching staff and FO should be another year more experienced and had another full draft class to add to the talent base. they were able to spend more money on the team this year, not less. the schedule is easier than 2023 though not as easy as 2022.
as the thread implies, the amount of regression mainstream regression being baked is irrational. It is fear combined with recency bias (plus some longer term bias that should have no bearing on this regime).
Keep the first 2 seasons outcomes exactly the same but reverse them chronologically and this team's O/U would be right around HOU (9.5), GB (9.5), JAX (8.5), IND (8.5).
The reason the O/U win totals are conservative is because, as you said, unpredictability is a factor. A few bounces here and there can make a difference and elevate (what I think was) a bad 2022 Giants team to 9 wins.
If we're talking about the Vegas numbers for the 2024 Giants what do you think can be inferred from the following:
1. The O/U total is lower in 2024 than it was in each of 2022 and 2023.
2. Only four teams (DEN +12000, TEN +15000, NE +15000, CAR +25000) have longer odds to win the Super Bowl. NYG (+10000) has the same odds as WAS, LV, and ARI.
3. The odds to win the NFC East are PHI +115, DAL +130, WAS +800, NYG +1200. Only ARI (+1300), DEN (+1500), and NE (+2500) are longer shots to win their respective divisions.
I don't get the feeling Vegas thinks this is a team somewhere in the middle of the pack.
betting against the giants has been a smart bet for a long time combined with recency bias toward last year where they came in under.
Quote:
DJ while not great can be "good" enough if given protection or Lock can for that matter. Either of them can get us to 8+ wins with a competent OL. 10+ if the OL really comes together and surprises(not betting on that). Any reasonable uptick from last years OL DEBACLE should get us to 8+ wins though.
While I certainly agree about the oline, and their importance cannot be overstated, I think 8-9 is possible but certainly not probable.
8-9 wins possible/probable(imo) ONLY IF the OL comes together meaningfully, otherwise all best are off
it is year 3 for this regime, why should the over/under be lower than years 1 & 2 (which they cumulatively exceeded)?
it's what i said above - recency bias combined with 10+ years of this franchise sucking. most of that 10+ years has nothing to do with this FO/coach though. the mainstream opinion is basically ignoring 2022 as if it didnt happen when it is half of this regime's sample size.
in 2024 the natural progression of this team should be something like 8+ wins. it is year 3, the coaching staff and FO should be another year more experienced and had another full draft class to add to the talent base. they were able to spend more money on the team this year, not less. the schedule is easier than 2023 though not as easy as 2022.
as the thread implies, the amount of regression mainstream regression being baked is irrational. It is fear combined with recency bias (plus some longer term bias that should have no bearing on this regime).
I think you have to be a little more careful with the pattern analysis before labeling them as statistics (if your implication is they are significant, maybe you're not).
1) The breaks, luck etc. are not evenly distributed over time or predictable by definition so there's no reason to believe 2024 will/won't be on the receiving end of bad luck.
2) I'm sure we can come up with some anecdotal examples of year 3 being positive for a staff, as I'm sure we can find counter examples. I don't think there is good stat sig data that supports time spent in seat is causal.
3) Did they spend more money this year than last? They paid Thomas, Lawrence, Okereke, and Jones last year. Maybe they spent more money on new players?
If I had to completely guess, the most correlative factors in no order when doing a post mortem would be
1) Quarterback performance in the previous year (as a signal of future success)
2) Real strength of schedule (exit not entrance results)
3) Percent of games missed by opening day starters due to injury
I think there are some big bumps in there that don't align with an natural progress (if that's even a thing).
So tired of 5 months of foolish optimism only to be doing mock drafts early October but if that's your thing then by all means have at it.
Mock drafts in October with the inevitable "there are no generational qbs in this class", statement that accompanies that analysis every year.
betting against the giants has been a smart bet for a long time combined with recency bias toward last year where they came in under.
Thank you. The Vegas line represents market wisdom. It is a deep market with many skilled bettors putting their own money on the line. Ignore it at your peril.
They are just rolling out the same failed plan. It seems their strategy is to do the same until a great franchise QB falls into their laps, which takes them out of the race to score a surprise breakout like the 49ers with Purdy.
Quote:
one year they got all the breaks, one year all the breaks went against them.
in 2024 the natural progression of this team should be something like 8+ wins. it is year 3, the coaching staff and FO should be another year more experienced and had another full draft class to add to the talent base. they were able to spend more money on the team this year, not less. the schedule is easier than 2023 though not as easy as 2022.
as the thread implies, the amount of regression mainstream regression being baked is irrational. It is fear combined with recency bias (plus some longer term bias that should have no bearing on this regime).
I think you have to be a little more careful with the pattern analysis before labeling them as statistics (if your implication is they are significant, maybe you're not).
1) The breaks, luck etc. are not evenly distributed over time or predictable by definition so there's no reason to believe 2024 will/won't be on the receiving end of bad luck.
2) I'm sure we can come up with some anecdotal examples of year 3 being positive for a staff, as I'm sure we can find counter examples. I don't think there is good stat sig data that supports time spent in seat is causal.
3) Did they spend more money this year than last? They paid Thomas, Lawrence, Okereke, and Jones last year. Maybe they spent more money on new players?
If I had to completely guess, the most correlative factors in no order when doing a post mortem would be
1) Quarterback performance in the previous year (as a signal of future success)
2) Real strength of schedule (exit not entrance results)
3) Percent of games missed by opening day starters due to injury
I think there are some big bumps in there that don't align with an natural progress (if that's even a thing).
most of these are factors (injuries, real sos) that determine what DOES happen (results) - not what SHOULD happen (expectations).
in this case, year 3 SHOULD be a progressive season for all the reasons we know contextually with this regime - they didn't pivot from their chosen QB, they've spent more money on NEW players each successive year, they've added a 3rd draft class to 2 full classes that are more experienced. Paying players that were already here different amounts isn't necessarily predictive of those players performances (raw talent is basically constant).
the nfl has proven to be very hard to predict what will happen, im commenting on what the expectations should be which i think ive posted fairly consistently since before the new league year - the bar for this regime should be set at 8+ wins. and that was mostly based on the resources they had to improve the team prior to knowing which players they would ultimately choose in FA/draft.
Quote:
they want the action even on both sides they aren't predicting a win number, they are picking the midpoint of where they will balance the actions of the mainstream public.
betting against the giants has been a smart bet for a long time combined with recency bias toward last year where they came in under.
Thank you. The Vegas line represents market wisdom. It is a deep market with many skilled bettors putting their own money on the line. Ignore it at your peril.
i dont ignore it, but the majority dont win so the majority opinion is at least as much noise as signal. the sharps make their money betting big when the majority pushes lines to illogical places based on mistaken general consensus.
i dont have any data to back this up but i think the nfl is also a lot harder to predict than mlb, nba, or nhl. there have probably been 5 or 6 win o/u teams win 10-12 games (it may even happen close to once a year?). i think it's a lot rarer for an MLB o/u at 60-65 wins ending up winning 95-100.
betting against the giants has been a smart bet for a long time combined with recency bias toward last year where they came in under.
Vegas is in the prediction business. And they are very good at it. They predict the Giants are likely a 6-win team. Seems you might be trying to put lipstick on a pig.
Quote:
they want the action even on both sides they aren't predicting a win number, they are picking the midpoint of where they will balance the actions of the mainstream public.
betting against the giants has been a smart bet for a long time combined with recency bias toward last year where they came in under.
Vegas is in the prediction business. And they are very good at it. They predict the Giants are likely a 6-win team. Seems you might be trying to put lipstick on a pig.
thats cute but vegas is in the money making business. they dgaf about any prediction being right or wrong, only however much money they can get people to wager on it.
Quote:
In comment 16523136 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
they want the action even on both sides they aren't predicting a win number, they are picking the midpoint of where they will balance the actions of the mainstream public.
betting against the giants has been a smart bet for a long time combined with recency bias toward last year where they came in under.
Vegas is in the prediction business. And they are very good at it. They predict the Giants are likely a 6-win team. Seems you might be trying to put lipstick on a pig.
thats cute but vegas is in the money making business. they dgaf about any prediction being right or wrong, only however much money they can get people to wager on it.
Don't be an imbecile just because you backed yourself into a corner. I know you are smarter than that.
"in the money making business" is a tautology and means nothing. Every business is in the money making business.
This is the sentiment I disagree with the most. Maybe the better way to describe this are there are some signals that could indicate positive outcomes.
I am not sure I've ever seen data indicating year 3 of a staff, 3 years of draft classes, YoY spending to correlate with more wins.
Not saying it doesn't exist, but if time correlated with wins, the win curve for coaches in years 1-3 would grow at the expense of more tenured coaches since the number of games is static. I don't think that's true.
I feel like these are examples of things that better happen, or else. Not necessarily statistical signals of likelihood.
Quote:
i think there are some very simple statistical methods to determine what the realistic expectations should be regardless of anyone's choice of side
This is the sentiment I disagree with the most. Maybe the better way to describe this are there are some signals that could indicate positive outcomes.
I am not sure I've ever seen data indicating year 3 of a staff, 3 years of draft classes, YoY spending to correlate with more wins.
Not saying it doesn't exist, but if time correlated with wins, the win curve for coaches in years 1-3 would grow at the expense of more tenured coaches since the number of games is static. I don't think that's true.
I feel like these are examples of things that better happen, or else. Not necessarily statistical signals of likelihood.
you are looking for data that i dont think is necessary and may exist, but would be incredibly hard to correctly identify sample.
the parameters are pretty simple and all of them SHOULD be positively correlative.
having more draft picks,
more money spent,
players chosen to extend at big $,
are all things that SHOULD be positive. it is hard to sort/filter that which is why we dont have data on it but more is more. or at least it should be. i dont think we need data to tell us more shouldnt be less.
Quote:
optimism many have here in the offseason. As posted above, every team thinks they are better this year than last. Some will be right and some will be wrong. The Giants getting better immediately equating to more wins means the rest of the league all stayed flat, which is an inaccurate assumption.
Jayden Daniels may struggle in year one, or he may have a breakout rookie season like Stroud did. The Commanders and their fans certainly believe they got better and might even be counting two wins against the Giants this year. It's fair to be optimistic but that is not a straight line because the Giants may have also gotten better.
What I am seeing that seems a bit much is the talk about Tracy. There are a lot of very high expectations some of you seem to have for a 5th round RB. I hope they are true, but expecting much from a 5th round player in his rookie year seems a little over the top.
I think, based on what I’ve read, that 5th round is misleading. He only played RB for one year and he is an older player coming out- 25. I think both of these factored in him being a lower draft pick. I couldn’t care less that he is 25. I will be happy if he only plays for his 5 year rookie contract, much like Saquon……especially if he plays like his potential shows.
All of those facts were known to other teams. If most looked at his tape and said "this guy is good and come in and produce immediately" he would have likely gone higher. He went in the 5th round because nobody thought he was a better prospect than the guy they took in the 4th and the 3rd.
Lines are based on reading public sentiment and expectation, not making predictions. Vegas isn't predicting anything. They are reflecting the collective view of the betting community.
you are looking for data that i dont think is necessary and may exist, but would be incredibly hard to correctly identify sample.
the parameters are pretty simple and all of them SHOULD be positively correlative.
having more draft picks,
more money spent,
players chosen to extend at big $,
are all things that SHOULD be positive. it is hard to sort/filter that which is why we dont have data on it but more is more. or at least it should be. i dont think we need data to tell us more shouldnt be less.
I think we're in a semantics impasse, but not far from each other. I think I'm interpreting your view as a prediction vs. an expectation. Reading back that's not what you're saying.
My view, independent of everything we've traded thoughts on, is that time in seat is probably not an indicator of success. I don't think pulling that data would be that hard. Coaches and GMs since year X, in years 1-3, W/L record curve.
In the abstract 3 years of drafts, 3 years of experience, 3 years of veteran acquisition/retention -- should lead to success.
I am not sure I agree 3 years of Schoen's drafts, 3 years of Daboll at HC, and 3 years of Schoen's veteran acquisitions/retentions -- will produce 8+ wins.
Vegas: OK. Go ahead and bet the over
They are just rolling out the same failed plan. It seems their strategy is to do the same until a great franchise QB falls into their laps, which takes them out of the race to score a surprise breakout like the 49ers with Purdy.
Only if Jones was from Manhattan. He would be such a better producer, right?
They have sharps who make predictions and then they shift lines to mitigate risk. They are very good at it, better than any keyboard warrior on BBI, but as we know predicting football games and win totals is basically impossible.
But if they opened the line on Giants wins at 6.5 it is because they think the Giants will most likely win 6 or 7 games, not 8 or 9 as the OP opines. Furthermore, there is a statistical concept called *median*. I speak carefully here, and gently, because based on this exchange I can't take anything for granted, and the point of the line is that it is a median expectation of how the Giants will finish. And median is dead center - the middle expected value. Which in statistical terms means the Giants are expected to have as many possible outcomes above 6.5 as below it. So 8 wins will be as likely 5 wins, in general terms.
Vegas: OK. Go ahead and bet the over
precisely
While I would agree that with year three the new regime is on the hot seat to produce, the Giants best players (AT/Dex) are NOT from this regime, nor is the most important player on the team.
It's rather obtuse to stick to a two year window when considering the Giants win total for the upcoming season and simply dismissing anything beyond that window as bias.
It is a best guess by highly compensated sharps who work in a competitive $15B industry to produce guesses on competitive outcomes. They try to get it right. And the line moves to mitigate risk based on the action.
It is a best guess by highly compensated sharps who work in a competitive $15B industry to produce guesses on competitive outcomes. They try to get it right. And the line moves to mitigate risk based on the action.
What did Vegas predict in 2022? How did that work out for them?
Besides, Who really cares what Vegas says?
So you think if most of the betting public believes the Giants will win 8 games, but the Vegas "prediction" is 6.5, they set the line at 6.5? You realize what happens then, right?
Tons of money flows in on the over until Vegas adjusts the line to 8.5.
Not a prediction. Wrong term. They are estimating the median of public expectations.
They have sharps who make predictions and then they shift lines to mitigate risk. They are very good at it, better than any keyboard warrior on BBI, but as we know predicting football games and win totals is basically impossible.
But if they opened the line on Giants wins at 6.5 it is because they think the Giants will most likely win 6 or 7 games, not 8 or 9 as the OP opines. Furthermore, there is a statistical concept called *median*. I speak carefully here, and gently, because based on this exchange I can't take anything for granted, and the point of the line is that it is a median expectation of how the Giants will finish. And median is dead center - the middle expected value. Which in statistical terms means the Giants are expected to have as many possible outcomes above 6.5 as below it. So 8 wins will be as likely 5 wins, in general terms.
They don’t make predictions as much as gauge public sentiment. The public (understandably) thinks the Giants will suck, so Vegas sets the O/U accordingly. They could care less if they are right about the number of wins.
NFC EAST (2-4)
Commanders x2
Cowboys x2
Eagles x2
NFC SOUTH (3-1)
Panthers
Bucs
Saints
Falcons
NFC NORTH (2-2)
Browns
Bengals
Steelers
Ravens
Outsiders (1-2)
Vikings
Seahawks
Colts
I believe they will lose almost all their division games, and probably win 4-6 overall, thanks to a relatively soft non-divisional schedule. Assuming normalized injuries.
NFC EAST (2-4)
Commanders x2
Cowboys x2
Eagles x2
NFC SOUTH (3-1)
Panthers
Bucs
Saints
Falcons
NFC NORTH (2-2)
Browns
Bengals
Steelers
Ravens
Outsiders (1-2)
Vikings
Seahawks
Colts
One of the more reasonable predictions. Yeah maybe we go 1-2 against the AFC North but we can potentially go 2-1 against the last group. Its not anything to do with being overly optimistic. More to the fact that we can compete against some of these team and so much can happen between now and the games.
Quote:
do they consistently make money because all of their predictions come true or because they are balancing the predictions of others?
Lines are based on reading public sentiment and expectation, not making predictions. Vegas isn't predicting anything. They are reflecting the collective view of the betting community.
that's exactly what i said (the post above was for pro-darwin-ucer who said vegas is making predictions).
In the abstract 3 years of drafts, 3 years of experience, 3 years of veteran acquisition/retention -- should lead to success.
I am not sure I agree 3 years of Schoen's drafts, 3 years of Daboll at HC, and 3 years of Schoen's veteran acquisitions/retentions -- will produce 8+ wins.
on both of these comments we are in 100% agreement, and i was not looking to imply more than that.
i understand why vegas isnt putting the o/u at 8.0, but that doesnt mean we should lower our standards of what should be expected of this regime in year 3. either they show me something in the next 6-8 months or id be calling belichick or vrabel.
Quote:
In the abstract 3 years of drafts, 3 years of experience, 3 years of veteran acquisition/retention -- should lead to success.
I am not sure I agree 3 years of Schoen's drafts, 3 years of Daboll at HC, and 3 years of Schoen's veteran acquisitions/retentions -- will produce 8+ wins.
on both of these comments we are in 100% agreement, and i was not looking to imply more than that.
i understand why vegas isnt putting the o/u at 8.0, but that doesnt mean we should lower our standards of what should be expected of this regime in year 3. either they show me something in the next 6-8 months or id be calling belichick or vrabel.
No thanks on Vrabel. It would be a terrible missed opportunity with Daboll if he gets fired and only had Jones to work with. He is an alleged QB whisperer. We should make sure he gets at least one young, high-ceiling QB to mold into his offense.
favored 3 games
even in 1 game
underdog +3 or less in 2 games
underdog +3 to +6 in 8 games
underdog +6 or more in 3 games
If you go by the line, 6 games is what the numbers are saying that NY will probably win.
Quote:
There is give and take, but this is my rough estimate
NFC EAST (2-4)
Commanders x2
Cowboys x2
Eagles x2
NFC SOUTH (3-1)
Panthers
Bucs
Saints
Falcons
NFC NORTH (2-2)
Browns
Bengals
Steelers
Ravens
Outsiders (1-2)
Vikings
Seahawks
Colts
One of the more reasonable predictions. Yeah maybe we go 1-2 against the AFC North but we can potentially go 2-1 against the last group. Its not anything to do with being overly optimistic. More to the fact that we can compete against some of these team and so much can happen between now and the games.
There is a lot of ifs so I am tempering my hopes, but 8 seems reasonbly attainable. I think we can ever be better than that, but I learned my lesson and wait til I see it.
I also think we more critical on our own team and don't do the same critiques on the competition.
NFC South does not have elite QBs
AFC North is a little overated, they had soft competition last year, so their records were high, Steelers QB not great, Browns QB not great, and Burrow is coming a relative serious surgery on on his wrist
And our outsiders are not powerhouses, the Viking we get week 1 with a rookie or Darnold.
We need to stay healthy, line needs to be average, some of the young players need to take a step up, Nabers be legit. There plenty of ifs and they need to prove it, but a lot of this is reasonably possible.
I know some here will just bitch about DJ and they have plenty of evidence, but looking at our opponents there a lot of QBs that can be had just as easily using that as the barometer. Most are either young QBs who have not proven it either or a QB with past injuries or some QB who was the Daniel Jones of their first team.