PDA

View Full Version : Is our offense now on the same level as the Packers / Saints?



Warchild
05-16-2012, 10:10 AM
Discuss

Antwuan
05-16-2012, 10:14 AM
IMO Yes

The Giants running game is going to be better this upcoming season and the Giants passing game is by far one of the best in the NFL. If the O-Line improves the Giants the running game will be much better.

BeatYale
05-16-2012, 10:26 AM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints.

nygsb42champs
05-16-2012, 10:46 AM
I would say it is pretty darn close. the only reason I would give the Packers and Saints a slight edge is that they have a game breaking TE that we do not have.

chasjay
05-16-2012, 11:18 AM
Discuss

Your question sent me to looking up and trying to interpret stats from the three teams last year. I have reached no conclusions, but our status versus those teams in 2012 will have to do both with how our offense performs and how the other two perform. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the Packers and Saints will still have higher octane offenses than we will have next year.

Last year, we were 8th in yardage and 9th in scoring - the Packers were 3rd in yardage, 1st in scoring - and the Saints were 1st in yardage and 2nd in scoring. So we were easily in the top third of the league and won the Super Bowl, to boot.

In looking at the stats, one interesting item (to me) is that the Packers were 1st in scoring, 12th in time of possession and 28th in plays per game. In other words, they scored pretty damn quickly. I'm not sure that was always to their advantage.

In 2011, on average, the Giants scored 1 point for every 2.612 plays they ran - the Saints scored a point every 2.041 plays and the Packers averaged a point every 1.764 plays. Obviously, this does not account for points scored by the defense or special teams.

If we can move our per game average up from 2011's 24.6 points per game to the 28 to 30 point range in 2012, I'll be well pleased.

All those words, and I'm not sure I answered the OP's question!! [:)]

repeatchamps
05-16-2012, 11:19 AM
It is close butas of now the Saints can run the ball better and have as someone said a gamebreaker at TE as does GB. Also, GB has Kuhn who gets 3rd/4th and 1's regularly while the Giants struggle mightilyat that attimes. Also as mentioned GB and New Orleans typically turn it over less.

BK07071
05-16-2012, 11:48 AM
Discuss

It sounds to me that you have your doubts about the Giants offense because you are comparing our offense to that of the Saints and Packers. Let me ask you this question.......if the Saints and Packers have such a good offense than why didn't they win the Super Bowl???
You should be comparing their offense to ours....not visa versa!

thomsoad
05-16-2012, 11:51 AM
Discuss

It sounds to me that you have your doubts about the Giants offense because you are comparing our offense to that of the Saints and Packers. Let me ask you this question.......if the Saints and Packers have such a good offense than why didn't they win the Super Bowl???
You should be comparing their offense to ours....not visa versa!


When did people start doing this annoying habit anyways?

I dont know what it is but these just irritate me to no end: this "Discuss" BS. Like your trying to be a debate moderator or something . You wanna a discussion...how bout having an opinion first? ... DISCUSS!

DVision
05-16-2012, 11:52 AM
It is close but*as of now the Saints can run the ball better and have as someone said a gamebreaker at TE as does GB. Also, GB has Kuhn who gets 3rd/4th and 1's regularly while the Giants struggle mightily*at that at*times. Also as mentioned GB and New Orleans typically turn it over less.

The Saints could run the ball better. They lost a key component to their running game when they lost Carl Nicks.

Morehead State
05-16-2012, 11:53 AM
Discuss</P>


Not a chance.</P>


But we will see what we have this season. If Wilson can contribute in the way I think he can and our O line plays better, we can have a very dynamic offense.</P>


BTW....staying healthy would help.</P>

Morehead State
05-16-2012, 11:53 AM
Discuss

It sounds to me that you have your doubts about the Giants offense because you are comparing our offense to that of the Saints and Packers. Let me ask you this question.......if the Saints and Packers have such a good offense than why didn't they win the Super Bowl???
You should be comparing their offense to ours....not visa versa!
</P>


Because thier defenses sucked.</P>


Isn't that obvious?</P>

DVision
05-16-2012, 11:56 AM
Discuss

It sounds to me that you have your doubts about the Giants offense because you are comparing our offense to that of the Saints and Packers. Let me ask you this question.......if the Saints and Packers have such a good offense than why didn't they win the Super Bowl???
You should be comparing their offense to ours....not visa versa!


When did people start doing this annoying habit anyways?

I dont know what it is but these just irritate me to no end: this "Discuss" BS. Like your trying to be a debate moderator or something . You wanna a discussion...how bout having an opinion first? ... DISCUSS!

The OP is starting a discussion on a topic on the message board. What do you think the purpose of the boards is? Just so you can rant?

Roosevelt
05-16-2012, 12:00 PM
Discuss

It sounds to me that you have your doubts about the Giants offense because you are comparing our offense to that of the Saints and Packers. Let me ask you this question.......if the Saints and Packers have such a good offense than why didn't they win the Super Bowl???
You should be comparing their offense to ours....not visa versa!


When did people start doing this annoying habit anyways?

I dont know what it is but these just irritate me to no end: this "Discuss" BS. Like your trying to be a debate moderator or something . You wanna a discussion...how bout having an opinion first? ... DISCUSS!

There's nothing wrong in seeking out others opinions.

Morehead State
05-16-2012, 12:04 PM
Discuss

It sounds to me that you have your doubts about the Giants offense because you are comparing our offense to that of the Saints and Packers. Let me ask you this question.......if the Saints and Packers have such a good offense than why didn't they win the Super Bowl???
You should be comparing their offense to ours....not visa versa!
When did people start doing this annoying habit anyways? I dont know what it is but these just irritate me to no end: this "Discuss" BS. Like your trying to be a debate moderator or something . You wanna a discussion...how bout having an opinion first? ... DISCUSS!

There's nothing wrong in seeking out others opinions.
</P>


Actually it is a tad irritating that he starts a discussion without expressing an opinion himself.</P>


Seems weak.</P>

bigjeep
05-16-2012, 12:10 PM
It is close but*as of now the Saints can run the ball better and have as someone said a gamebreaker at TE as does GB. Also, GB has Kuhn who gets 3rd/4th and 1's regularly while the Giants struggle mightily*at that at*times. Also as mentioned GB and New Orleans typically turn it over less.

Didn't we beat Greenbay in the playoffs?

CGYgiant
05-16-2012, 12:14 PM
It is close butas of now the Saints can run the ball better and have as someone said a gamebreaker at TE as does GB. Also, GB has Kuhn who gets 3rd/4th and 1's regularly while the Giants struggle mightilyat that attimes. Also as mentioned GB and New Orleans typically turn it over less.

Didn't we beat Greenbay in the playoffs?

Yeah, but the Saints beat us real bad just about every single time we play them it seems like..

Gimaniac
05-16-2012, 12:14 PM
Is it better to start a thread with an actual comment?

Discuss.

Mercury
05-16-2012, 12:30 PM
Our offense doesn't need to be better than the Packers or Saints. Our team is better, and that's what counts.

RoanokeFan
05-16-2012, 12:38 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints.

Our problems on offense certainly aren't our wide receivers and has less to do with our running backs than the offensive line. Eli has improved his game management skills, resulting in fewer interceptions. He is not forcing the ball and is, more than ever, willing to throw it away or take the sack.

As for the OLine, they need to work together as a unit more than any other unit on the team. As bad as things were in that regard last season, they still set the franchise record for most consecutive games without giving up a sack at 5.

Things aren't nearly as bad on offense as some might think.

repeatchamps
05-16-2012, 12:39 PM
It is close butas of now the Saints can run the ball better and have as someone said a gamebreaker at TE as does GB. Also, GB has Kuhn who gets 3rd/4th and 1's regularly while the Giants struggle mightilyat that attimes. Also as mentioned GB and New Orleans typically turn it over less. Didn't we beat Greenbay in the playoffs?</P>


Oh I agree, I'd rather have the Giants as my team going up against Green Bay. Matchup is big time in the Giants favor. However, there are teams the Giants go against that GB might have a better time handling(strictly offense vs defense)then the Giants might. The NFL is all about matchups.</P>

repeatchamps
05-16-2012, 12:40 PM
Our offense doesn't need to be better than the Packers or Saints. Our team is better, and that's what counts.

</P>


This.</P>

bklyn1028
05-16-2012, 01:23 PM
I had a discussion with a co-worker after the Bills beat the Pats week 3 last year. It came down to him believing the Pats were the best team in the NFL (he's a Ravens fan). I said, how can they be the best team, they just lost

Turned into a little heated, and I for the life of me can't understand how a team can lose, and still be called the best team. The Bills obviously bested them, so the Pats can't (for that week anyway) be better. I said it's like a fighter knocking another fighter out and saying the one on the mat is the better fighter.

The Giants are the best team in football NOW. After the season starts, all bets are off. Do they have a better offense then the Packers, ...right now...YES. They beat them, they have to have a better offense. My God, if it wasn't for 2 blown calls, it might've been God knows what. The Pack might not have scored more than 10 points.
Yes Virginia, there is a strong offense in NY.

ralphpal
05-16-2012, 01:56 PM
We have a great offense but i dont think as great as the saints or packers but then it doesnt have to be

ashleymarie
05-16-2012, 02:06 PM
It is close butas of now the Saints can run the ball better and have as someone said a gamebreaker at TE as does GB. Also, GB has Kuhn who gets 3rd/4th and 1's regularly while the Giants struggle mightilyat that attimes. Also as mentioned GB and New Orleans typically turn it over less. Didn't we beat Greenbay in the playoffs?</P>


</P>


Yes. Twice. Third time is not guaranteed. </P>


</P>


I would rather face the Packers. The Saints have owned us every single time.</P>

BeatYale
05-16-2012, 02:15 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints.

Our problems on offense certainly aren't our wide receivers and has less to do with our running backs than the offensive line.* Eli has improved his game management skills, resulting in fewer interceptions.* He is not forcing the ball and is, more than ever, willing to throw it away or take the sack.

As for the OLine, they need to work together as a unit more than any other unit on the team.* As bad as things were in that regard last season, they still set the franchise record for most consecutive games without giving up a sack at 5.

Things aren't nearly as bad on offense as some might think.


I'm just pointing out that the Giants passing touchdowns versus interceptions differential isn't anywhere near those other teams that the OP is mentioning. Aaron Rodgers was +39, Brees was +32, Eli was +13. That's a big difference. As for Eli, sadly, that's the best he's done thus far in his career.

With that said it's hard to argue in favor of the Giants offense when they have less touchdowns and more interceptions than those other teams.

There's a lot of room for improvement in regards to scoring production during the regular season.

lawl
05-16-2012, 02:19 PM
Nicks and Cruz are better than any WRs on either of those teams.</P>


Our 3rd WR and RB is an unknown quantity. Same can be said about Packers RBs. Saints have multiple weapons at RB and their options after Colston at WR aren't as good as ours.</P>


Both of those team's QB and TEs are better, along with OL</P>


</P>


</P>

thomsoad
05-16-2012, 02:24 PM
Nicks and Cruz are better than any WRs on either of those teams.</P>
*</P>

Im a huge Cruz/Nicks fan. But NO and GB got some seriously dam good WR's too.

Drez
05-16-2012, 02:31 PM
Discuss

It sounds to me that you have your doubts about the Giants offense because you are comparing our offense to that of the Saints and Packers. Let me ask you this question.......if the Saints and Packers have such a good offense than why didn't they win the Super Bowl???
You should be comparing their offense to ours....not visa versa!
</p>


Because thier defenses sucked.</p>


Isn't that obvious?</p>
Ours, overall, was worse.

Morehead State
05-16-2012, 02:33 PM
Discuss

It sounds to me that you have your doubts about the Giants offense because you are comparing our offense to that of the Saints and Packers. Let me ask you this question.......if the Saints and Packers have such a good offense than why didn't they win the Super Bowl???
You should be comparing their offense to ours....not visa versa!
</P>


Because thier defenses sucked.</P>


Isn't that obvious?</P>



Ours, overall, was worse.
</P>


Not in the playoffs. Our defense was great.</P>

byron
05-16-2012, 02:46 PM
http://cdn3.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/4053981/3_QUARTER_VIEW_large.jpg </P>


different level</P>

bigjeep
05-16-2012, 03:36 PM
It is close but*as of now the Saints can run the ball better and have as someone said a gamebreaker at TE as does GB. Also, GB has Kuhn who gets 3rd/4th and 1's regularly while the Giants struggle mightily*at that at*times. Also as mentioned GB and New Orleans typically turn it over less. Didn't we beat Greenbay in the playoffs?</P>


*</P>


Yes. Twice. Third time is not guaranteed. </P>


*</P>


I would rather face the Packers. The Saints have owned us every single time.</P>

Everything happens in three's!

JimC
05-16-2012, 03:51 PM
Not if we can't beat them this year.

RoanokeFan
05-16-2012, 03:54 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints.

Our problems on offense certainly aren't our wide receivers and has less to do with our running backs than the offensive line. Eli has improved his game management skills, resulting in fewer interceptions. He is not forcing the ball and is, more than ever, willing to throw it away or take the sack.

As for the OLine, they need to work together as a unit more than any other unit on the team. As bad as things were in that regard last season, they still set the franchise record for most consecutive games without giving up a sack at 5.

Things aren't nearly as bad on offense as some might think.


I'm just pointing out that the Giants passing touchdowns versus interceptions differential isn't anywhere near those other teams that the OP is mentioning. Aaron Rodgers was +39, Brees was +32, Eli was +13. That's a big difference. As for Eli, sadly, that's the best he's done thus far in his career.

With that said it's hard to argue in favor of the Giants offense when they have less touchdowns and more interceptions than those other teams.

There's a lot of room for improvement in regards to scoring production during the regular season.

I'm not sure it's "sad" as he's constantly improved. The numbers are going to be skewed when you go from a mindset of "I have to force this in there" to one of "live to make another play."

It's how the team plays around the QB that really matters. Individual stats are meaningless until players retire and they look for HOF consideration.

Drez
05-16-2012, 03:54 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints.

Our problems on offense certainly aren't our wide receivers and has less to do with our running backs than the offensive line. Eli has improved his game management skills, resulting in fewer interceptions. He is not forcing the ball and is, more than ever, willing to throw it away or take the sack.

As for the OLine, they need to work together as a unit more than any other unit on the team. As bad as things were in that regard last season, they still set the franchise record for most consecutive games without giving up a sack at 5.

Things aren't nearly as bad on offense as some might think.

Even though they didn't give up a lot of sacks, they gave up a ton of pressure, which can be just about as bad as a sack. The OL definitely needs to get their stuff together, though. Imagine how well Eli could do if he had a nice clean pocket to throw from most of the time.

RoanokeFan
05-16-2012, 03:58 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints.

Our problems on offense certainly aren't our wide receivers and has less to do with our running backs than the offensive line. Eli has improved his game management skills, resulting in fewer interceptions. He is not forcing the ball and is, more than ever, willing to throw it away or take the sack.

As for the OLine, they need to work together as a unit more than any other unit on the team. As bad as things were in that regard last season, they still set the franchise record for most consecutive games without giving up a sack at 5.

Things aren't nearly as bad on offense as some might think.

Even though they didn't give up a lot of sacks, they gave up a ton of pressure, which can be just about as bad as a sack. The OL definitely needs to get their stuff together, though. Imagine how well Eli could do if he had a nice clean pocket to throw from most of the time.


I think we are going to see a marked improvement in the OLine

Drez
05-16-2012, 04:02 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints.

Our problems on offense certainly aren't our wide receivers and has less to do with our running backs than the offensive line. Eli has improved his game management skills, resulting in fewer interceptions. He is not forcing the ball and is, more than ever, willing to throw it away or take the sack.

As for the OLine, they need to work together as a unit more than any other unit on the team. As bad as things were in that regard last season, they still set the franchise record for most consecutive games without giving up a sack at 5.

Things aren't nearly as bad on offense as some might think.


I'm just pointing out that the Giants passing touchdowns versus interceptions differential isn't anywhere near those other teams that the OP is mentioning. Aaron Rodgers was +39, Brees was +32, Eli was +13. That's a big difference. As for Eli, sadly, that's the best he's done thus far in his career.

With that said it's hard to argue in favor of the Giants offense when they have less touchdowns and more interceptions than those other teams.

There's a lot of room for improvement in regards to scoring production during the regular season.

I'm not sure it's "sad" as he's constantly improved. The numbers are going to be skewed when you go from a mindset of "I have to force this in there" to one of "live to make another play."

It's how the team plays around the QB that really matters. Individual stats are meaningless until players retire and they look for HOF consideration.

I think just looking a TD:INT ratio is a very, very skewed way of judging offensive potency anyway. Take a look at the systems, too. We have much more complicated reads and whatnot than GB and NO which, at times, can cause a higher interception rate. We also push the ball downfield more, which also are riskier throws.

Our offense is every bit as potent as GB and NO.

Drez
05-16-2012, 04:03 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints.

Our problems on offense certainly aren't our wide receivers and has less to do with our running backs than the offensive line. Eli has improved his game management skills, resulting in fewer interceptions. He is not forcing the ball and is, more than ever, willing to throw it away or take the sack.

As for the OLine, they need to work together as a unit more than any other unit on the team. As bad as things were in that regard last season, they still set the franchise record for most consecutive games without giving up a sack at 5.

Things aren't nearly as bad on offense as some might think.

Even though they didn't give up a lot of sacks, they gave up a ton of pressure, which can be just about as bad as a sack. The OL definitely needs to get their stuff together, though. Imagine how well Eli could do if he had a nice clean pocket to throw from most of the time.


I think we are going to see a marked improvement in the OLine

I'd like to believe so, too. Though, it's hard to imagine them playing any worse, lol.

RoanokeFan
05-16-2012, 04:47 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints.

Our problems on offense certainly aren't our wide receivers and has less to do with our running backs than the offensive line. Eli has improved his game management skills, resulting in fewer interceptions. He is not forcing the ball and is, more than ever, willing to throw it away or take the sack.

As for the OLine, they need to work together as a unit more than any other unit on the team. As bad as things were in that regard last season, they still set the franchise record for most consecutive games without giving up a sack at 5.

Things aren't nearly as bad on offense as some might think.

Even though they didn't give up a lot of sacks, they gave up a ton of pressure, which can be just about as bad as a sack. The OL definitely needs to get their stuff together, though. Imagine how well Eli could do if he had a nice clean pocket to throw from most of the time.


I think we are going to see a marked improvement in the OLine

I'd like to believe so, too. Though, it's hard to imagine them playing any worse, lol.


I realize they were at the tail end of the League, still, injuries and a lack of playing time as a group were the main problems. Only time will tell, of course, but I think we will see serious imrovement.

JesseJames
05-16-2012, 04:58 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints. in the 2010 season Eli was last in INT's and Brees was right behind him.

FeaglesPuntsEaglesRunts
05-16-2012, 05:09 PM
Yes, but unfortunately we have one of the most difficult schedules for a second year in a row so it's tough to judge based just off stats.

Eli is as good a QB as anyone in the league, better than everyone except possibly Brady in the playoffs.

TheBookOfEli
05-16-2012, 05:10 PM
Our defense is better than both the Saints and Packers. That's what counts.

Diamondring
05-16-2012, 06:25 PM
Well this thread is a prediction and I will say no because of our O-line. We don't know what we are going to get out of them.

Manstache
05-16-2012, 06:39 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints.u sound like the same cats that berated eli for throwing 25 ints in 2010 ..then turn around and ignore the fact that brees threw 22 that very same year. brees threw 14 last year, and brady 12. not much of a margin to single out killer ELIte. we rite there with those other offenses, and we didnt even have the threat of a run game to keep defenses honest.

Drez
05-16-2012, 09:23 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints.u sound like the same cats that berated eli for throwing 25 ints in 2010 ..then turn around and ignore the fact that brees threw 22 that very same year. brees threw 14 last year, and brady 12. not much of a margin to single out killer ELIte. we rite there with those other offenses, and we didnt even have the threat of a run game to keep defenses honest.
And Eli was the most pressured QB in the league.

BeatYale
05-16-2012, 09:35 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints. in the 2010 season Eli was last in INT's and Brees was right behind him.

Brees was still behind him in ints and ahead of him in touchdowns that year though.

Brees follows that up with 46TD-14INT and Eli answered with 29TD-16INT. Again, a +13 differential is the best he's produced thus far while those other QBs have beat that mark numerous times already.

Until there's a significant improvement in this area, I don't even think it's worth comparing our teams offense to those other teams.

Touchdowns are good. Interceptions are bad.

I understand you guys want to stick up for Eli, heck I do it all the time when arguing with rival fans - and this ugly stat is something I always try to avoid. It's the truth though, and it sucks!

Drez
05-16-2012, 09:39 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints. in the 2010 season Eli was last in INT's and Brees was right behind him.

Brees was still behind him in ints and ahead of him in touchdowns that year though.

Brees follows that up with 46TD-14INT and Eli answered with 29TD-16INT. Again, a +13 differential is the best he's produced thus far while those other QBs have beat that mark numerous times already.

Until there's a significant improvement in this area, I don't even think it's worth comparing our teams offense to those other teams.

Touchdowns are good. Interceptions are bad.

I understand you guys want to stick up for Eli, heck I do it all the time when arguing with rival fans - and this ugly stat is something I always try to avoid. It's the truth though, and it sucks!
That's a very flawed metric to use for offensive potency.

lawl
05-16-2012, 09:54 PM
Discuss Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies. Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career. Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year. I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints. in the 2010 season Eli was last in INT's and Brees was right behind him. Brees was still behind him in ints and ahead of him in touchdowns that year though. Brees follows that up with 46TD-14INT and Eli answered with 29TD-16INT. Again, a +13 differential is the best he's produced thus far while those other QBs have beat that mark numerous times already. Until there's a significant improvement in this area, I don't even think it's worth comparing our teams offense to those other teams. Touchdowns are good. Interceptions are bad. I understand you guys want to stick up for Eli, heck I do it all the time when arguing with rival fans - and this ugly stat is something I always try to avoid. It's the truth though, and it sucks!
That's a very flawed metric to use for offensive potency.
</P>


Points scored and giveaways is a flawed metric?</P>


In my estimation they're the two most important jobs of an offense. Score points and don't turn the ball over.</P>

Drez
05-16-2012, 10:10 PM
Discuss Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies. Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career. Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year. I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints. in the 2010 season Eli was last in INT's and Brees was right behind him. Brees was still behind him in ints and ahead of him in touchdowns that year though. Brees follows that up with 46TD-14INT and Eli answered with 29TD-16INT. Again, a +13 differential is the best he's produced thus far while those other QBs have beat that mark numerous times already. Until there's a significant improvement in this area, I don't even think it's worth comparing our teams offense to those other teams. Touchdowns are good. Interceptions are bad. I understand you guys want to stick up for Eli, heck I do it all the time when arguing with rival fans - and this ugly stat is something I always try to avoid. It's the truth though, and it sucks!
That's a very flawed metric to use for offensive potency.
</p>


Points scored and giveaways is a flawed metric?</p>


In my estimation they're the two most important jobs of an offense. Score points and don't turn the ball over.</p>
Looking at turnover ratio as the major basis of offensive potency is flawed. It is looking only at one aspect of production.

Was our offense quite as prolific as GB or NO, not quite, but it's still every bit as potent.

BeatYale
05-16-2012, 10:20 PM
Discuss

Nope. We've lacked consistency and that is not going to be remedied by replacing veteran WR's and RB's with rookies.

Eli pretty much always ranks in the top 10 in interceptions. His TD-Int ratio is not anywhere close to Rogers or Drew Brees. That's been an ongoing problem throughout his career.

Yeah yeah we've all heard the excuses, I myself can probably hand pick about 7 or more interceptions that were not his fault - however, the interceptions are still an ongoing issue for this offense year after year.

I wouldn't compare our offense to the Packers or Saints. in the 2010 season Eli was last in INT's and Brees was right behind him.

Brees was still behind him in ints and ahead of him in touchdowns that year though.

Brees follows that up with 46TD-14INT and Eli answered with 29TD-16INT. Again, a +13 differential is the best he's produced thus far while those other QBs have beat that mark numerous times already.

Until there's a significant improvement in this area, I don't even think it's worth comparing our teams offense to those other teams.

Touchdowns are good. Interceptions are bad.

I understand you guys want to stick up for Eli, heck I do it all the time when arguing with rival fans - and this ugly stat is something I always try to avoid. It's the truth though, and it sucks!
That's a very flawed metric to use for offensive potency.


The offense is suppose to score points right? So it's flawed to assume more touchdowns and less interceptions translate to more points? I'm specifically targeting the passing game because that's the catalyst for the Packers and Saints offenses.

I know Eli got shafted on a few touchdowns, like the 3 against Buffalo in which receivers were tackled 1 yard shy of the end zone - those drives resulted in touchdowns for Bradshaw. Some of his ints were freak incidents, tipped/bobbled passes that ended up getting deflected to a defender. etc. etc.

However, I'm sure Saints and Packer fans can make up excuses for interceptions and lost touchdowns as well. It's moot.

So if those numbers shouldn't be used in the criteria to determine whether our offense is as good as the Saints or Packers.....what should? The Super Bowl victory? Us beating the Packers in the playoffs?

Well in that case the Giants offense is the best in the league.

lawl
05-16-2012, 10:20 PM
Looking at turnover ratio as the major basis of offensive potency is flawed. It is looking only at one aspect of production.

Was our offense quite as prolific as GB or NO, not quite, but it's still every bit as potent.



NO and GB both scored more points, had less turnovers, producedmore yards and a higher time of possession, converted on a higher amount of 3rd downs, and had more yards per play.</P>


Dont know what else to say.</P>


</P>

miked1958
05-16-2012, 11:00 PM
IMO Yes

The Giants running game is going to be better this upcoming season and the Giants passing game is by far one of the best in the NFL. If the O-Line improves the Giants the running game will be much better.I think we can be as good or better

GCGiant
05-17-2012, 06:22 AM
The question asks if the Giants' offense is at the same level as the Saints and Packers...and my first thought was that they were already at a higher level...a championship level. That's as high as it gets...and every year, there can be only 1 champion.

This year it is the Giants and they are at a level all their own until someone else is crowned world champion in NO next year. (if not the Giants)

Morehead State
05-17-2012, 08:45 AM
The question asks if the Giants' offense is at the same level as the Saints and Packers...and my first thought was that they were already at a higher level...a championship level. That's as high as it gets...and every year, there can be only 1 champion. This year it is the Giants and they are at a level all their own until someone else is crowned world champion in NO next year. (if not the Giants)</P>


So you're saying that defense means nothing in winning championships?</P>


Nonsense!</P>

gumby742
05-17-2012, 09:24 AM
The question asks if the Giants' offense is at the same level as the Saints and Packers...and my first thought was that they were already at a higher level...a championship level. That's as high as it gets...and every year, there can be only 1 champion. This year it is the Giants and they are at a level all their own until someone else is crowned world champion in NO next year. (if not the Giants)</P>


I'll never understand why winning the SB all of a sudden catapults a team/individuals into being the best at everything. Our defense was absolute crap for most of the season. We win the SB and now we have a great D. Our offense was not as good as NO/GB during the season, but since we won it, now we are the best?</P>

Morehead State
05-17-2012, 09:37 AM
The question asks if the Giants' offense is at the same level as the Saints and Packers...and my first thought was that they were already at a higher level...a championship level. That's as high as it gets...and every year, there can be only 1 champion. This year it is the Giants and they are at a level all their own until someone else is crowned world champion in NO next year. (if not the Giants)</P>


I'll never understand why winning the SB all of a sudden catapults a team/individuals into being the best at everything. Our defense was absolute crap for most of the season. We win the SB and now we have a great D. Our offense was not as good as NO/GB during the season, but since we won it, now we are the best?</P>


</P>


Well since we won the SB the following must be true.</P>


David Deihl is the best LT in football</P>


Tynes must be the best kicker in football</P>


Jake Ballard is better than Ron Gronkowski</P>


Danny Ware is the best third down back in football</P>


The Giants have the best special teams in football</P>


</P>


According to some posters, players, units, (offenses, defenses) are all the best in football if you win a SB.</P>


</P>


Nothing but crap.</P>


</P>


</P>

Redeyejedi
05-17-2012, 09:57 AM
No ,.They have a very good Offense thats capable of hanging with anyone if the they play at peek ability. The Giants OLine is in shambles. It was the worst in the NFL last year. Really a testament to how great Eli was last year,They fix that and get the running game back on track they could be

lamas
05-17-2012, 10:40 AM
Looking at turnover ratio as the major basis of offensive potency is flawed. It is looking only at one aspect of production.

Was our offense quite as prolific as GB or NO, not quite, but it's still every bit as potent.



NO and GB both scored more points, had less turnovers, producedmore yards and a higher time of possession, converted on a higher amount of 3rd downs, and had more yards per play.</p>


Dont know what else to say.</p>


</p>

This is true, but doesn't take into consideration that Saints and Packers also played "easier" opponents last year. Now I'm not saying that opponents makes up the entire difference in O, but I would think it puts the numbers a bit closer at least.

Morehead State
05-17-2012, 10:47 AM
Looking at turnover ratio as the major basis of offensive potency is flawed. It is looking only at one aspect of production.

Was our offense quite as prolific as GB or NO, not quite, but it's still every bit as potent.



NO and GB both scored more points, had less turnovers, producedmore yards and a higher time of possession, converted on a higher amount of 3rd downs, and had more yards per play.</P>


Dont know what else to say.</P>


</P>




This is true, but doesn't take into consideration that Saints and Packers also played "easier" opponents last year. Now I'm not saying that opponents makes up the entire difference in O, but I would think it puts the numbers a bit closer at least.
</P>


Strength of schedule ratings 2011 NFL.</P>


13 (tie) Saints (130-126)</P>


13 (tie) Packers (130-126)</P>


19. Giants (126-130)</P>


</P>


Giants had an easier schedule than either the Pack or Saints.</P>

lamas
05-17-2012, 10:51 AM
Looking at turnover ratio as the major basis of offensive potency is flawed. It is looking only at one aspect of production.

Was our offense quite as prolific as GB or NO, not quite, but it's still every bit as potent.



NO and GB both scored more points, had less turnovers, producedmore yards and a higher time of possession, converted on a higher amount of 3rd downs, and had more yards per play.</p>


Dont know what else to say.</p>


</p>




This is true, but doesn't take into consideration that Saints and Packers also played "easier" opponents last year. Now I'm not saying that opponents makes up the entire difference in O, but I would think it puts the numbers a bit closer at least.
</p>


Strength of schedule ratings 2011 NFL.</p>


13 (tie) Saints (130-126)</p>


13 (tie) Packers (130-126)</p>


19. Giants (126-130)</p>


</p>


Giants had an easier schedule than either the Pack or Saints.</p>

Your numbers are based on 2010 records. Using actual 2011 records is more accurate.

Giants 6th hardest
Packers 24th
Saints 31st

http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/1299408

Morehead State
05-17-2012, 10:56 AM
Looking at turnover ratio as the major basis of offensive potency is flawed. It is looking only at one aspect of production.

Was our offense quite as prolific as GB or NO, not quite, but it's still every bit as potent.



NO and GB both scored more points, had less turnovers, producedmore yards and a higher time of possession, converted on a higher amount of 3rd downs, and had more yards per play.</P>


Dont know what else to say.</P>


</P>




This is true, but doesn't take into consideration that Saints and Packers also played "easier" opponents last year. Now I'm not saying that opponents makes up the entire difference in O, but I would think it puts the numbers a bit closer at least.
</P>


Strength of schedule ratings 2011 NFL.</P>


13 (tie) Saints (130-126)</P>


13 (tie) Packers (130-126)</P>


19. Giants (126-130)</P>


</P>


Giants had an easier schedule than either the Pack or Saints.</P>




Your numbers are based on 2010 records. Using actual 2011 records is more accurate.

Giants 6th hardest
Packers 24th
Saints 31st

http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/1299408
</P>


I stand corrected. I saw the date of January 4th and thought it was 2012.</P>

giantsfan420
05-17-2012, 11:07 AM
The question asks if the Giants' offense is at the same level as the Saints and Packers...and my first thought was that they were already at a higher level...a championship level. That's as high as it gets...and every year, there can be only 1 champion. This year it is the Giants and they are at a level all their own until someone else is crowned world champion in NO next year. (if not the Giants)</P>


I'll never understand why winning the SB all of a sudden catapults a team/individuals *into being the best at everything.* Our defense was absolute crap for most of the season.* We win the SB and now we have a great D.* Our offense was not as good as NO/GB during the season, but since we won it, now we are the best?</P>


</P>


Well since we won the SB the following must be true.</P>


David Deihl is the best LT in football</P>


Tynes must be the best kicker in football</P>


Jake Ballard is better than Ron Gronkowski</P>


Danny Ware is the best third down back in football</P>


The Giants have the best special teams in football</P>


*</P>


According to some posters, players, units, (offenses, defenses) are all the best in football if you win a SB.</P>


*</P>


Nothing but crap.</P>


*</P>


*</P>

Lmfao. Ur both mad bc u held the "eli can be and will be the best" was impossible position, now that its at least an arguable reality, u morph that opinion to mean we say we r the best at things we rnt...

Ive yet to see anyone make a claim that wasnt at least defendable concerning our team and its diff aspects, maybe a few but hardly what u guys r implying...like "u guys are actually informed while a lot of us r misinformed"...
i actually see a ton more posts saying the complete opposite of what ur implying...you guys should worry less about how other people have flawed reasoning n work on ur own...

TrueBlue@NYC
05-17-2012, 11:19 AM
No, our offense doesn't have near the consistency of the two mentioned in this thread.

The Saints had one of the most balanced offenses ever last season. They were great at both running and passing the ball.

GB is similar to the Giants offense but their OL was better last year and Rodgers was otherwordly, so they had more consistency, but they were similar in their reliance on scoring on big plays rather than driving down the field.

FroZeNx31x
05-17-2012, 11:19 AM
I would say yes but we are still missing 1 piece...... an above average #4 WR.

Saints have Moore and Henderson, Packers have Jones and the rookie from last year.

Once we get Jerrigan or Barden to consistently make plays when their on the field i will yes our offense is on par with those other two teams.

Morehead State
05-17-2012, 11:20 AM
The question asks if the Giants' offense is at the same level as the Saints and Packers...and my first thought was that they were already at a higher level...a championship level. That's as high as it gets...and every year, there can be only 1 champion. This year it is the Giants and they are at a level all their own until someone else is crowned world champion in NO next year. (if not the Giants)</P>


I'll never understand why winning the SB all of a sudden catapults a team/individuals into being the best at everything. Our defense was absolute crap for most of the season. We win the SB and now we have a great D. Our offense was not as good as NO/GB during the season, but since we won it, now we are the best?</P>


</P>


Well since we won the SB the following must be true.</P>


David Deihl is the best LT in football</P>


Tynes must be the best kicker in football</P>


Jake Ballard is better than Ron Gronkowski</P>


Danny Ware is the best third down back in football</P>


The Giants have the best special teams in football</P>


</P>


According to some posters, players, units, (offenses, defenses) are all the best in football if you win a SB.</P>


</P>


Nothing but crap.</P>


</P>


</P>


Lmfao. Ur both mad bc u held the "eli can be and will be the best" was impossible position, now that its at least an arguable reality, u morph that opinion to mean we say we r the best at things we rnt... Ive yet to see anyone make a claim that wasnt at least defendable concerning our team and its diff aspects, maybe a few but hardly what u guys r implying...like "u guys are actually informed while a lot of us r misinformed"... i actually see a ton more posts saying the complete opposite of what ur implying...you guys should worry less about how other people have flawed reasoning n work on ur own...</P>


I honestly can't figure out what you are saying. We are not texting here. Please use actual words and I might be able to reply.</P>

TrueBlue@NYC
05-17-2012, 11:40 AM
I would say yes but we are still missing 1 piece...... an above average #4 WR.

Saints have Moore and Henderson, Packers have Jones and the rookie from last year.

Once we get Jerrigan or Barden to consistently make plays when their on the field i will yes our offense is on par with those other two teams.

Actually, I think with the saints the difference is the OL and them having dynamic players at RB (Sproles) and TE (Graham). Saints don't actually run alot of 4WR sets as much as they rotate their guys.

Antwuan
05-17-2012, 05:37 PM
The Packers & Saints have Elite TE's. The Giants don't have an Elite TE unless Martellus Bennett develops into one. But I still think the Giants Offense is pretty close to the Packers & Saints Offense.

Drez
05-17-2012, 05:46 PM
The Packers &amp; Saints have Elite TE's. The Giants don't have an Elite TE unless Martellus Bennett develops into one. But I still think the Giants Offense is pretty close to the Packers &amp; Saints Offense.
So that means we can't have an elite offense? Because we don't have an elite TE?

giantsfan420
05-17-2012, 06:16 PM
The Packers & Saints have Elite TE's. The Giants don't have an Elite TE unless Martellus Bennett develops into one. But I still think the Giants Offense is pretty close to the Packers & Saints Offense.
So that means we can't have an elite offense? Because we don't have an elite TE?

Im hoping we just our elite te

Delicreep
05-17-2012, 07:45 PM
...what surprises me in all this is the near total lack of perspective.

I would say 'no, the gmens offense is not on the same level as the pack/saints'.

Now, do I think that there is a single team in the league that thinks, 'thank god we face the giants offense this week'?

You game plan against the giants O, it's about limiting damage, same as the pack and saints ( and pats and maybe 2 or 3 other teams)

DJloves
05-17-2012, 10:16 PM
We still struggle with consistency. There were games last year where I just sighed in disbelief (the game at home vs the Redskins comes instantly to mind). Every team is going to have an off-game, but we shouldn't be having multiple ones in a season.

As for comparisons, the Packers and Saints will always be known as offensive juggernauts who score quickly and often, whereas the Giants operate on more "slow burn" level.

gumby742
05-17-2012, 10:21 PM
No, our offense doesn't have near the consistency of the two mentioned in this thread.

The Saints had one of the most balanced offenses ever last season. They were great at both running and passing the ball.

GB is similar to the Giants offense but their OL was better last year and Rodgers was otherwordly, so they had more consistency, but they were similar in their reliance on scoring on big plays rather than driving down the field.

Absolutely. NO and GB had CONSISTENT offenses. Our offense would often disappear for a quarter then show up the next. In my mind, that's the biggest difference. Our offense had a tendency to brain fart.

That being said, like the above also mentioned, both those teams ran the ball much better than we did.

BigBlue1971
05-17-2012, 10:58 PM
if im basing my answer on last years records and supposedly dominance by the Saints/Packers....but we all know how that turned out! </P>


then no wewerent as consistent as they were! we took weeks off they didnt!</P>


this coming season will be different imo. Eli is a master of the offense and he will have the weapons necessary to meet any challenge!</P>


so yeah i think all three teams will be in the top 3-4 offensively in the league! </P>


the G-Men will hold their own!</P>


</P>

Diamondring
05-18-2012, 06:31 AM
Yes our offense is at their level. My predictions I made before preseason 08 began in 08 were right on. Eli will improve his game play, the offense will be one of the high scoring offenses in the NFL and the 3 wr set should be used as our primary set.

Well Eli has improved, the offense has been one of the top ten in the NFL for some time now, and the 3 wr set was very helpful that Reese even got another wr in the high rounds.

It seems that people didn't take head to those predictions and many others that were right on more than the ones that were wrong. One stupid mod said I talked about we should use 9 wr sets. How am I going to make a post like that when I talked about five main blockers the O-line? You can't have nine wrs one the field at the same time with five main blockers on the field? I wonder why that person made a lie about me in the past?

G-Man67
05-18-2012, 04:45 PM
the thing with the Saints is that they are so different at home vs. on the road ... they averaged 42.4 points at home, but when you look at themon the road and specifically outdoors on the road</P>


they only averaged 23.8 outdoors on the road ... having said that they did hang 32 on SF in the playoffs</P>


i still have to put them a notch ahead of us, but for those that think the gap is wide ... well they need to look a little closer and consider weather, indoors/outdoors, crowd noise, playoffs, schedule,division, etc.</P>


as far as GB ... again i think it is closer than people might think, but Rodger's ability to make perfect throws outside the pocket consistently ... well that makes them a real nightmare to defend ... still though, while i rate GB a notch ahead of us ... i'd bet on Eli over Aaron with 1:30 on the clock, down 5, at the 20 needing to drive it 80 yards</P>

gmen0820
05-18-2012, 04:52 PM
If Randle meets expectations, and Jernigan can be a 500+ yard guy, then I think we can be better than everyone.

Antwuan
05-18-2012, 05:17 PM
The Packers & Saints have Elite TE's. The Giants don't have an Elite TE unless Martellus Bennett develops into one. But I still think the Giants Offense is pretty close to the Packers & Saints Offense.
So that means we can't have an elite offense? Because we don't have an elite TE?


I never said that, what im saying is even with the Packers & Saints having better TE's I think the Giants are right on par with them on Offense or at least close.