Interesting OL Stat...

[percyhoward]

The Giants were terrible running the ball most of the year...

Let me guess. You see that the Giants were 32nd in yards per rush attempt, and use that to conclude that they were "terrible" running the ball. But yards per rush attempt is meaningless when you compare it to scoring.

I'll repeat. Yards per rush attempt means nothing compared to scoring. No matter how low your average yards per attempt, if you can run in the red zone, you will score more points than a team that can't. That's why the Giants were 9th in scoring, and Dallas was 15th.

If the Giants were able to run so well in the red zone, how come their yards per attempt was so low?

Good red zone rushing teams have a much greater percentage of their carries that are 1- to 3-yard gains. Although the 1- to 3-yard gains can often be considered successful red zone runs, and in fact many of those runs are touchdowns, all of those runs hurt their average.

Unlike the successful red zone rushing teams, teams like Dallas that don't run the ball as often in the red zone have comparatively fewer 1- to 3-yard gains. That boosts your average yards per attempt. If the Cowboys didn't run the ball in the red zone at all, they would probably lead the league in yards per rush attempt and rank near the bottom in red zone TD percentage. It's obvious which of those two is the more important statistic.

So the Giants ranked 32nd in yards per rush attempt, but they were a Top 10 team in red zone TD percentage and rushing TD, despite having a QB who was not that good in the red zone. Their red zone success was all about being able to run the ball down there.

 

[jterrell]

Let me guess. You see that the Giants were 32nd in yards per rush attempt, and use that to conclude that they were "terrible" running the ball. But yards per rush attempt is meaningless when you compare it to scoring.

I'll repeat. Yards per rush attempt means nothing compared to scoring. No matter how low your average yards per attempt, if you can run in the red zone, you will score more points than a team that can't. That's why the Giants were 9th in scoring, and Dallas was 15th.

If the Giants were able to run so well in the red zone, how come their yards per attempt was so low?

Good red zone rushing teams have a much greater percentage of their carries that are 1- to 3-yard gains. Although the 1- to 3-yard gains can often be considered successful red zone runs, and in fact many of those runs are touchdowns, all of those runs hurt their average.

Unlike the successful red zone rushing teams, teams like Dallas that don't run the ball as often in the red zone have comparatively fewer 1- to 3-yard gains. That boosts your average yards per attempt. If the Cowboys didn't run the ball in the red zone at all, they would probably lead the league in yards per rush attempt and rank near the bottom in red zone TD percentage. It's obvious which of those two is the more important statistic.

So the Giants ranked 32nd in yards per rush attempt, but they were a Top 10 team in red zone TD percentage and rushing TD, despite having a QB who was not that good in the red zone. Their red zone success was all about being able to run the ball down there.

Let me repeat: The Giants were terrible rushing the ball most of the year.

There is more than 1 rushing stat that matters. Dallas had more 1st downs rushing on less attempts, rushed for more yards and a higher average.

HOWEVER, if you go to the post-season where it mattered the Giants ran very well. ONLY 2 TDs rushing but they were over 115 ypg with a good average.

Anyone arguing the Giants ran well during the season is full off crap. Eli carried that team then the defense and running game took off in the playoffs.

 

[Risen Star]

Let me guess. You see that the Giants were 32nd in yards per rush attempt, and use that to conclude that they were "terrible" running the ball. But yards per rush attempt is meaningless when you compare it to scoring.

I'll repeat. Yards per rush attempt means nothing compared to scoring. No matter how low your average yards per attempt, if you can run in the red zone, you will score more points than a team that can't. That's why the Giants were 9th in scoring, and Dallas was 15th.

If the Giants were able to run so well in the red zone, how come their yards per attempt was so low?

Good red zone rushing teams have a much greater percentage of their carries that are 1- to 3-yard gains. Although the 1- to 3-yard gains can often be considered successful red zone runs, and in fact many of those runs are touchdowns, all of those runs hurt their average.

Unlike the successful red zone rushing teams, teams like Dallas that don't run the ball as often in the red zone have comparatively fewer 1- to 3-yard gains. That boosts your average yards per attempt. If the Cowboys didn't run the ball in the red zone at all, they would probably lead the league in yards per rush attempt and rank near the bottom in red zone TD percentage. It's obvious which of those two is the more important statistic.

So the Giants ranked 32nd in yards per rush attempt, but they were a Top 10 team in red zone TD percentage and rushing TD, despite having a QB who was not that good in the red zone. Their red zone success was all about being able to run the ball down there.

It's not just in the red zone, Percy. When a team loses confidence in their running game, they're less likely to run it in short yardage no matter where they are on the field. 3rd and 2 in New York isn't the same thing as 3rd and 2 in Dallas.

It's why you see all the crying about Garrett not sticking with the run. Well, he can't.

 

[percyhoward]

Anyone arguing the Giants ran well during the season is full off crap. Eli carried that team then the defense and running game took off in the playoffs.

That's how the legend goes. Truth is, Eli got a lot of help from his OL and RB during the season. I mean a whole lot.

Red Zone TD
Bradshaw/Jacobs: 18
Jones/Murray: 2

Red Zone Passer Rating
Eli 75.9
Romo 105.9

 

[speedkilz88]

The goal-line problems had everything to do with pushing rookies into the line-up too early. None of them were strong enough at the point of attack when the DL was stacked in prevent.

 

[percyhoward]

It's not just in the red zone, Percy. When a team loses confidence in their running game, they're less likely to run it in short yardage no matter where they are on the field. 3rd and 2 in New York isn't the same thing as 3rd and 2 in Dallas.

It's why you see all the crying about Garrett not sticking with the run. Well, he can't.

What you said about lack of success leading to abandoning the run is true, but I'm looking at it from the angle of all the missed scoring opportunities.

We had 30+ passing TD, so we should have had 15+ rushing TD. I'm focusing on the red zone because that's where most of our missing rushing TD would have come from.

One interesting thing that surprised me is that short yardage failure between the 20's doesn't necessarily equate to rushing problems in the red zone. Some good stuff about the importance (and the difference) of red zone running from Garrett and Skip Peete. Red zone running is a different ballgame.

 

[jterrell]

That's how the legend goes. Truth is, Eli got a lot of help from his OL and RB during the season. I mean a whole lot.

Red Zone TD
Bradshaw/Jacobs: 18
Jones/Murray: 2

Red Zone Passer Rating
Eli 75.9
Romo 105.9

Again, cool stats.
Problem is people watched the actual games.
Eli lead comeback after comeback in the 4th quarter by passing.

He did have a couple Romo-like late poor games (that every QB seems to have) that took his QB rating down for 4th quarters. But his overall play was top of the league stuff the last 4 weeks and for the post-season.

Having 265 pound Brandon Jacobs go in from 1 yard out isn't breath-taking.
Manning torching us for 400 yards with a couple TDs rather is.

Against us with the post-season on the line they ran for 106 yards on 31 attempts for a 3.4 ypc avg. BUT Manning passed for 346 yards with 3 TDs and had a QB rating of 138.

Than in the post-season where the Giants only had 2 rushing TDs, Manning had 9 with 1 pick for a QB rating of 103.

The Giants were so impressed with Jacobs TD runs that they cut him.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, cool stats.
Problem is people watched the actual games.
Eli lead comeback after comeback in the 4th quarter by passing.

He did have a couple Romo-like late poor games (that every QB seems to have) that took his QB rating down for 4th quarters. But his overall play was top of the league stuff the last 4 weeks and for the post-season.

Having 265 pound Brandon Jacobs go in from 1 yard out isn't breath-taking.
Manning torching us for 400 yards with a couple TDs rather is.

Against us with the post-season on the line they ran for 106 yards on 31 attempts for a 3.4 ypc avg. BUT Manning passed for 346 yards with 3 TDs and had a QB rating of 138.

Than in the post-season where the Giants only had 2 rushing TDs, Manning had 9 with 1 pick for a QB rating of 103.

The Giants were so impressed with Jacobs TD runs that they cut him.

Hes not attributing Jacobs I do not think. they didn't cut any of their linemen. A thumper certainly is important but Hynovski and their oline getting consistent push at the los is what gets you rushing TDs. I remember Bradie James getting stood up on leads up the middle.

Also while Manning has proven himself a clutch QB its still the typical fallacy you hear in clutch arguments. its great and all that in the last half of the last quarter that Manning was able to move the ball in the air but without that 1 rushing TD per game those heroics would not have been possible.

At any particular time score late and close have more impact on whether or not a game is won or lost but when looking at the game as a whole a point is a point is a point.

No one is doubting that

if you want to talk about how to win in close and late situations thats fine and dandy but when you consider how to win over the course of an entire game, running the ball can not be ignored.

Even in those games the Giants still ran the ball into some very stout front 7's at least 25 times.

The weakness in our offense right now is being able to run in the red zone and convert 2nd and 3 at midfield running the ball.

I also remember the Eagles emasculating our defense by running the ball. i want that.

 

[percyhoward]

Again, cool stats.
Problem is people watched the actual games.

Ah, the actual games. Some of those people watching the games were keeping track of what happened on every play. Of every game. That's where the cool stats came from.

Eli had a great playoff run, but he never would have sniffed the playoffs if the Giants hadn't been able to run, and run well, in the red zone. This is not just somebody's opinion. Take away 16 of those 18 TD and see if the Giants still get 9 wins. We're talking common sense.

Take away 16 of Bradshaw and Jacobs' red zone touchdowns and you've got what Romo had to work with inside the 20. Whether all those extra touchdowns that Eli got took somebody's breath away or guaranteed Jacobs' future with the team is irrelevant, as this isn't a discussion about excitement or job security.

Actually look at what happened in the games (unless you believe the stats to show something other than what happened in the games) and decide which QB really carried his team. It may not be the one the TV tells you, but that's not unusual, is it?

 

[Kangaroo]

It's sickening to look at that. Just a pathetic performance.

The good news is those backs get to run behind Mackenzy Bernadeau and Nate Livings now.

Cendric Benson has had 6,7,6 TD by himself the last three years and Livings was part of that.

As a team Cinci had 10 rushing tds to tie them at 21st in the league in 2011
compared to dallas and are 5 as a team Dallas was good on the ypc a robust 4.4 but we know how that went when we got in close to the goal line

 

[jterrell]

Ah, the actual games. Some of those people watching the games were keeping track of what happened on every play. Of every game. That's where the cool stats came from.

Eli had a great playoff run, but he never would have sniffed the playoffs if the Giants hadn't been able to run, and run well, in the red zone. This is not just somebody's opinion. Take away 16 of those 18 TD and see if the Giants still get 9 wins. We're talking common sense.

Take away 16 of Bradshaw and Jacobs' red zone touchdowns and you've got what Romo had to work with inside the 20. Whether all those extra touchdowns that Eli got took somebody's breath away or guaranteed Jacobs' future with the team is irrelevant, as this isn't a discussion about excitement or job security.

Actually look at what happened in the games (unless you believe the stats to show something other than what happened in the games) and decide which QB really carried his team. It may not be the one the TV tells you, but that's not unusual, is it?

Bro, I respect the effort you make in researching data but now you are piddling down my back and telling me it is raining.

Dallas and the Giants met in the finale with the same record. That 18 rushing TDs meant really nothing. It was all about week 17 and the Giants didn't beat us running the ball they torched us in the air.

WHEN the Giants were getting those rushing TDs they basically sucked. Then Eli heated up and that defense went crazy.

They didn't rush for TDs in the playoffs at any impressive clip gathering only 2. Yet they won the Super Bowl.

You are taking some basic stat and trying to correlate it to success but it doesn't correlate at all. They passed for more TDs and with much more success in WINS. Especially wins that mattered!!!!

Look at the ACTUAL games.
I am not going to break down all 16 here but will dot he first four weeks....

Week 1: LOSS 2 Rushing TDs, poor passing game lose 28-14 to Wash....
Week 2: WIN 1 Rushing TD which came late with a big lead. 2 passing TDs in 1st half
Week 3: WIN 0 Rush TDs, but Mannign has 145 QBR with 4 TD passes as they paste the Eagles.
Week 4: WIN Beat Arizona 31-27 and rush for 2 TDs. But Manning goes for 321 with 2 passing TDs as well. INCLUDING 2 in the final 4 minutes to lead a big comeback.

So bro please stop while you are behind.
The facts are very, very clear. The Giants passing game carried them to 6 or 7 wins when little else was working. THEN the defense got going and they marched through the playoffs.

 

[jterrell]

Hes not attributing Jacobs I do not think. they didn't cut any of their linemen. A thumper certainly is important but Hynovski and their oline getting consistent push at the los is what gets you rushing TDs. I remember Bradie James getting stood up on leads up the middle.

Also while Manning has proven himself a clutch QB its still the typical fallacy you hear in clutch arguments. its great and all that in the last half of the last quarter that Manning was able to move the ball in the air but without that 1 rushing TD per game those heroics would not have been possible.

At any particular time score late and close have more impact on whether or not a game is won or lost but when looking at the game as a whole a point is a point is a point.

No one is doubting that

if you want to talk about how to win in close and late situations thats fine and dandy but when you consider how to win over the course of an entire game, running the ball can not be ignored.

Even in those games the Giants still ran the ball into some very stout front 7's at least 25 times.

The weakness in our offense right now is being able to run in the red zone and convert 2nd and 3 at midfield running the ball.

I also remember the Eagles emasculating our defense by running the ball. i want that.

Again, that is taking one stat out of context and making a story around it that doesn't exist. All to support an argument that has nothing to do with the Giants at all.

The Giants do not have a coveted OL and they haven't used much in the way of resources to build it. They do not have a single 1st round pick along the OL. They have a solid RG in Snee but the rest are journeyman.

And the way to beat the Eagles was to get ahead by passing and make them pass. LeSean McCoy is probably their best overall player. And even with McCoy at over 1300 yards rushing and 17 TDs ALL BY HIMSELF they were a huge disappointment. Because the passing game fizzled.

Carolina easily led the league in rushing TDs with 26 on the way to a 6 win season.

Of course you want to be able to rush for TDs and win in short yardage situations but in this era of football you need to be able to gain yardage in chunks and to prevent giving up chunks of yardage.

 

[percyhoward]

Bro, I respect the effort you make in researching data but now you are piddling down my back and telling me it is raining.

Dallas and the Giants met in the finale with the same record. That 18 rushing TDs meant really nothing. It was all about week 17 and the Giants didn't beat us running the ball they torched us in the air.

I'm glad you appreciate the effort. Bear with me for a moment.

The Giants scored 46 offensive TD
29 passing
17 rushing

The Cowboys scored 38 offensive TD
33 passing
5 rushing

There's an element of the Giants' offense that made it more successful than the Cowboys' offense, and it wasn't Eli Manning. It was the ability to run in the red zone, which resulted in 12-touchdown edge for the Giants over the Cowboys running the ball.

You're so fixated on the last regular season game, and the fact that both teams were 8-7, that you forget to ask yourself how they got to 8-7. Look at the entire regular season. The Giants did not win the division on the strength of their 3-5 finish. They won it because they started 6-2 when nobody else in the division was above .500.

If the Cowboys had started 6-2 instead of 4-4, that last game would have been meaningless.

WHEN the Giants were getting those rushing TDs they basically sucked.

In those first 8 weeks of the season:

* The Giants won 4 games by 4 points or less, and scored 6 rushing TD. IOW, in those four wins they scored more rushing TD than the Cowboys did all season.

* The Cowboys LOST 3 games by 4 points or less and scored 1 rushing TD.

If the two teams trade those rushing TD totals, the Giants (with 5 fewer TD runs in those close wins) certainly don't start out 6-2. 4-4 is the most likely record and 3-5 is a possibility. The Cowboys, OTOH, (with 5 extra TD runs in their close losses) are at least 5-3, and possibly 6-2.

Remember, if both teams start 5-3, then Dallas wins the division.

 

[Galian Beast]

We lost a lot of games because we were kicking field goals where we should have had touchdowns... simple as that. Offensive line was just as much to blame as our defense.

5 rushing touchdowns... 1 of which was tony romo, the other was murray from like 70 yards out...

 

[Galian Beast]

The way I like to think of it is this.

FIVE SUCCESSFUL field goals will get you 15 points....

TWO touchdowns will get you 14 points...

How many field goals does it take to equal THREE touchdowns? SEVEN.

 

[percyhoward]

We lost a lot of games because we were kicking field goals where we should have had touchdowns... simple as that. Offensive line was just as much to blame as our defense.

It really is simple.

Ability to run in red zone = more touchdowns = more points

Passing TD
1 Packers
2 Saints
3 Lions
4 Patriots
5 Cowboys

Points
1 Packers
2 Saints
3 Patriots
4 Lions

15 Cowboys

It couldn't be any clearer. That 5-to-15 disparity is almost all because we couldn't run in the red zone.

 

[iceberg]

It's sickening to look at that. Just a pathetic performance.

The good news is those backs get to run behind Mackenzy Bernadeau and Nate Livings now.

yea, cause we're all done making moves and it's set in stone so anger-boners can rage on.

 

[Alexander]

yea, cause we're all done making moves and it's set in stone so anger-boners can rage on.

In free agency, we are done. Or should be.

There is nothing left.

 

[iceberg]

In free agency, we are done. Or should be.

There is nothing left.

when did we get robinson again?

all i'm saying is i'm tired of some people leading with sarcasm at every freaking post. it's like living with eyore and it gets old.

 

[Trajan]

Great thread on the importance of the o-line and redzone scoring.