"BRIAN DABOLL: Yeah, absolutely. Four-point plays are critical. Three-point game." Every time you give up a field goal, it's a four point positive play. You let the other team run the field and get a field goal. It is a positive 4 points for your team. Winning logic
Ummm...ok. I guess he is just a victim of very low standards.
I don't know man. The defense was awful in Landover. I guess all we can hope is that this is a new system & the guys will eventually start getting it/playing better, much like the '07 Giants struggled mightily with Spags @ first. I'm not comparing the '07 team to this squad, but you get my point.
Yeah I'd agree. It's not a terrible philosophy broadly, but it also relies on two things:
1) Winning the turnover battle
2) Consistently scoring TDs
Absent those two things, and you end up where the Giants were on Sunday - in a 50/50 game with a bad opponent.
Would you agree with the other side of that coin also - you assume your offense scores zero everytime they get the ball, and any points they get is a positive?
This is what Giants football has become? In another 24 months we will have people posting how proud they are the team made it to the stadium for a road game. Look, they have their matching uniforms and everything!
He is referencing plays. meaning 3rd down stops which lead to FG's.
And those stops are huge. What's lacking are the 3rd down stops that lead to punts.
At this point though, I wouldn't expect Daboll to understand this. I have no idea what happened to this guy or why someone casts a spell on all of our head coaches after positive first seasons.
Maybe it's the ozempic talking.
The defensive performance he is praising will win you next to zero games in the NFL. Washington stopped themselves in the red zone, while limiting the amount of time our offense could even touch the ball.
I will make a bold prediction - if the Browns are able to run the ball at will on the Giants like Washington did, and win the TOP battle by 15 minutes the way Washington did, the Giants will lose.
But sure, find the positives in losing by a slew of shallow cuts instead of a few deep stab wounds.
Daboll might get fired. Might deserve to get fired. But he has been coaching for 25 years and been hired by some good people. He knows that 0 is better than 3 is better than 7. He is obviously talking about red zone possessions.
At this point though, I wouldn't expect Daboll to understand this. I have no idea what happened to this guy or why someone casts a spell on all of our head coaches after positive first seasons.
Maybe it's the ozempic talking.
Coaches that are secure in their job criticize their teams and talk about how they need to get better. Coaches on the hot seat defend their team and explain why bad luck cost them the game.
Daboll knows he is on the hot seat because the on-field product is a mess.
Quote:
and understandably so, but I think we risk over parsing his words. There is nothing wrong with what he said. Clearly, he doesn’t mean it’s OK to give up a FG on every possession, but in general, if you keep your opponent out of the EZ, you’re going to win an overwhelming % of the time.
The defensive performance he is praising will win you next to zero games in the NFL. Washington stopped themselves in the red zone, while limiting the amount of time our offense could even touch the ball.
I will make a bold prediction - if the Browns are able to run the ball at will on the Giants like Washington did, and win the TOP battle by 15 minutes the way Washington did, the Giants will lose.
But sure, find the positives in losing by a slew of shallow cuts instead of a few deep stab wounds.
That DC shot themselves in the foot isn’t the point, keeping teams out of the EZ is. And I stand by what I said, defenses that keep opponents out of the EZ are going to win an overwhelming majority of those games.
Look sat it this way, DC was the more dominant offensive team on Sunday by TOP, but if we had a kicker, we almost certainly win. THAT is my point.
But you obviously can't operate in a world where everyone possession becomes a red zone situation.
I don't know man. The defense was awful in Landover. I guess all we can hope is that this is a new system & the guys will eventually start getting it/playing better, much like the '07 Giants struggled mightily with Spags @ first. I'm not comparing the '07 team to this squad, but you get my point.
Shane Bowen is not Spags
He was a former position coach with a couple of championship games under his belt.
I think if you score 3 TDs and the opponent scores 0, you probably win 99% of the time.
It was a strange game where both teams were scraping the barrel in different respects.
Quote:
The Singletary fumble and Nabers drop likely stopped at least 1 TD from happening. You score 4 TDs in a game and you win 90% of the time I would think.
I think if you score 3 TDs and the opponent scores 0, you probably win 99% of the time.
It was a strange game where both teams were scraping the barrel in different respects.
It's the first time that's happened out of over 17k games, so more like 99.99%
At this point though, I wouldn't expect Daboll to understand this. I have no idea what happened to this guy or why someone casts a spell on all of our head coaches after positive first seasons.
Maybe it's the ozempic talking.
The positive first season was a mirage. It was 7 games. We've sucked ever since.
You need to force punts.
Quote:
Not for our pathetic offense.
At this point though, I wouldn't expect Daboll to understand this. I have no idea what happened to this guy or why someone casts a spell on all of our head coaches after positive first seasons.
Maybe it's the ozempic talking.
The positive first season was a mirage. It was 7 games. We've sucked ever since.
Since they Houston game where they wore out Saquon.
If people look for negative comments, they can find them by seeing what they want to see. That is the point we are at with BBI.
It's also critical -- more so -- to force punts and/or turnovers, on downs or otherwise.
Both statements can be, and are true. Focusing on the positive, Daboll didn't vocalize the second.
And the issue with that is?
More important you can't let the opposing offense stay on the field for 35+ minutes every week.
Wash held a TOP edge of 37:32 to 22:28. Giants had 6 possessions. I still think they need to do better than 18 pts but 6 possessions won't cut it. Giants won a super bowl that way against arguably a top 5 offense all time.
Daboll doesn't know WTF he's talking about unless it's just lip service. You can't lose the TOP battle like that. You just can't. You won't win 4 games that way and I don't care how good the rest of the team plays or if you "only allow 7 FGs. Get the defense off the fucking field.
This was Daboll's actual comment:
This was Daboll's actual comment:
Quote:
Yeah, absolutely. Four-point plays are critical. Three-point game. Playing well in the red zone, you've got to do a good job of keeping them out of the red zone more and continue to evolve offensively and score when we're down in the red zone
Ya, I that's what I said. He focused on the positive; didn't verbalize the negative.
Quote:
I actually somewhat agree with that, ONLY if your offense can score a good amount of points. We can't.
More important you can't let the opposing offense stay on the field for 35+ minutes every week.
Wash held a TOP edge of 37:32 to 22:28. Giants had 6 possessions. I still think they need to do better than 18 pts but 6 possessions won't cut it. Giants won a super bowl that way against arguably a top 5 offense all time.
Daboll doesn't know WTF he's talking about unless it's just lip service. You can't lose the TOP battle like that. You just can't. You won't win 4 games that way and I don't care how good the rest of the team plays or if you "only allow 7 FGs. Get the defense off the fucking field.
There's another point. As the game progressed, I debated in my head what I'd do offensively were I Daboll. The play calling had to lean toward extended drives because we needed to keep the D off the field.
Yup - fans are so angry at the state of affairs that they’d criticize the manner in which Daboll wipes his ass at this point, but what he’s saying has become the standard across NFL defenses.
As others have said, what matters is our offense scoring TDs.
And being able to kick extra points to give us said 4 point advantage…
There's a lot to have issues with. But this comment is not one of them.
No, it is being read by many here completely out of context. Very obviously yielding 3 points is better than 7. I hope none of you are looking for Daboll to clarify that, or that was what he was hoping to explain to people who didn't understand.
What he is doing is trying to find a way to praise a defense that got its ass handed to it by a bad offense on Sunday. His defense could not get off the field all day, limiting his offense's ability to respond. The scored on every single possession. The fact that they were all field goals belies the fact that they scored every single time they had the ball.
The fact that context mattering has to be explained to people on this site is baffling.
<snip>
The fact that context mattering has to be explained to people on this site is baffling.
Is it though? Sadly......
Thank you
But you obviously can't operate in a world where everyone possession becomes a red zone situation.
We won't but we should.
No, because 3 is more than zero, so that isn't a negative four play, it is a plus 3 play.
You assume the other team scores a TD on every drive, and anything other than that is a win. Conversely, you assume the Giants score zero points every drive, and anything above that is a win.
It's called the Happy Sunshine Unicorn approach to coaching. Everything that isn't worst case scenario is considered a win.
I understand what you are getting at but that is sort of the point.
The more plays you force the offense to run, the more likely it is they will shoot themselves in the foot with a negative play. We also let them off the hook on multiple 3rd and longs prior to getting into the red zone.
Quote:
and understandably so, but I think we risk over parsing his words. There is nothing wrong with what he said. Clearly, he doesn’t mean it’s OK to give up a FG on every possession, but in general, if you keep your opponent out of the EZ, you’re going to win an overwhelming % of the time.
The defensive performance he is praising will win you next to zero games in the NFL. Washington stopped themselves in the red zone, while limiting the amount of time our offense could even touch the ball.
I will make a bold prediction - if the Browns are able to run the ball at will on the Giants like Washington did, and win the TOP battle by 15 minutes the way Washington did, the Giants will lose.
But sure, find the positives in losing by a slew of shallow cuts instead of a few deep stab wounds.
"Praising the defense" Monday there were a # of posters saying he threw the D under the bus.
We are never going to have a good defense playing with 2 dt, not going to happen.
Quote:
and only score a FG on a drive deep into the opposition's zone, is that a negative four?
It's called the Happy Sunshine Unicorn approach to coaching. Everything that isn't worst case scenario is considered a win.
I remember the Happy Sunshine Unicorn theory from one of my MBA classes. Thanks for that reminder.
Quote:
In comment 16615972 bw in dc said:
Quote:
and only score a FG on a drive deep into the opposition's zone, is that a negative four?
It's called the Happy Sunshine Unicorn approach to coaching. Everything that isn't worst case scenario is considered a win.
I remember the Happy Sunshine Unicorn theory from one of my MBA classes. Thanks for that reminder.
once the league adjusted to Daboll though... it has been an absolute train wreck ever since. Daboll hasn't adjusted himself to the adjustments at all. he's banging his head against a brick wall and hoping something will change.
at this point, assume the league knows all of his tells and he is not aware of any of it. and unless he raises his awareness and re-adjusts, he's toast.
and LOL at the "maybe it's the Ozempic" talking comment. I've heard crazier theories...
Ummm...ok. I guess he is just a victim of very low standards.
This was Daboll's actual comment:
Quote:
Yeah, absolutely. Four-point plays are critical. Three-point game. Playing well in the red zone, you've got to do a good job of keeping them out of the red zone more and continue to evolve offensively and score when we're down in the red zone
Thanks for providing the full quote.
It seems pretty clear this is a silver lining situation, and Daboll understands the problem is the rate of red zone opportunities the defense gave up.