PDA

View Full Version : Inside The Numbers: WR Cruz's 25th Game



RoanokeFan
10-16-2012, 05:00 PM
http://www.giants.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Inside-the-numbers-WR-Cruzs-25th-game/ea18ac4e-3019-4bbd-bd0d-71f59489be98

Excerpt: "WR Victor Cruz played in his 25th regular season game when the Giants defeated the 49ers

Victor Cruz's first NFL reception made just a small deposit in the Giants’ collective memory bank. It occurred early in the third quarter of a Monday night victory over St. Louis on Sept. 19, 2011. On a third down from the Giants’ 23-yard line, Cruz caught a pass from Eli Manning in the center of the field for a 10-yard gain and a first down.


That one small step for Cruz has turned into one huge contribution for the Giants.

On Sunday in San Francisco, Cruz played in his 25th regular season game when the Giants defeated the 49ers, 26-3. In those 25 games, he has caught 125 passes for 2,032 yards and 15 touchdowns. Cruz actually posted those numbers in just 21 games, because he had no receptions in any of his first four appearances.

Cruz has earned a spot among the players with the most catches and receiving yards through the first 25 games of a career in NFL history. And he is outpacing the vast majority of the most productive receivers the Giants have ever had.

Cruz’s 125 career receptions are tied for the sixth-most among players in their first 25 games:


PLAYER
TEAM
RECEPTIONS


Anquan Boldin
Arizona Cardinals
154


Reggie Bush
New Orleans Saints
143


Marques Colston
New Orleans Saints
138


Tom Fears
Los Angeles Rams
131


Charley Hennigan
Houston Oilers
126


Victor Cruz
Giants
125


Kellen Winslow
Cleveland Browns
125





Cruz’s 2,032 receiving yards are the sixth-highest total through the first 25 games of a career in NFL history:



PLAYER
TEAM
REC. YARDS


Charley Hennigan
Houston Oilers
2,468


Bill Groman
Houston Oilers
2,453


Billy Howton
Green Bay Packers
2,138


Lance Alworth
San Diego Chargers
2,118


Bob Hayes
Dallas Cowboys
2,084


Victor Cruz
Giants
2,032





Cruz’s 125 receptions are the most ever by a Giants player in his first 25 games. He is second in receiving yards and touchdowns (tied with teammate Hakeem Nicks), trailing only Del Shofner, among Giants 25 games into their careers.

To see how Cruz stacks up in Giants history, we selected the players with the five-highest reception totals in franchise history: Amani Toomer, Tiki Barber, Joe Morrison, Jeremy Shockey and Ike Hilliard. We also chose Aaron Thomas, Earnest Gray and Shofner, who are 11th, 13th and 15th, respectively, on the franchise career-receptions list. Nicks, if he stays healthy, could push his way onto that list (he’s currently 19th with 219 career catches). For further comparison, we also looked at Chris Calloway and Plaxico Burress, who are seventh and 12th on the list, despite starting their careers with other teams.

Totals through their 25 games as a Giant:



Name
Receptions
Yards
Touchdowns


Victor Cruz
125
2,032
15


Amani Toomer
20
307
2


Tiki Barber
70
594
3


Joe Morrison
47
565
4


Jeremy Shockey
124
1,468
4


Ike Hilliard
81
1,136
4


Aaron Thomas
23
485
3


Earnest Gray
59
945
8


Del Shofner
115
2,146
22


Hakeem Nicks
116
1,686
15


Plaxico Burress
116
1,837
13


Chris Calloway
37
516
3



" Read more...

TheAnalyst
10-16-2012, 05:10 PM
CRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZZZZ

:-)

RoanokeFan
10-16-2012, 05:21 PM
I'm guessing Jerry Reese is working on his plan to sign Nicks and Cruz

GMan-67
10-16-2012, 05:29 PM
thanks for those numbers, yeah Cruz just makes you smile ... it's awesome ... he literally can not be covered and what a partnership he has with 2 time Super Bowl MVP

RoanokeFan
10-16-2012, 05:31 PM
thanks for those numbers, yeah Cruz just makes you smile ... it's awesome ... he literally can not be covered and what a partnership he has with 2 time Super Bowl MVP

It's funny you say that, while walking my dog this morning I thought about how Cruz just manages to get open no matter how they defend him. It was most evident when Nicks was oput injured.

rxc999
10-16-2012, 05:33 PM
I sure hope so, that Reese is working on figuring out how to keep both Nicks and Cruz...have a feeling that Cruz will get a new contract during the bye week!!

RoanokeFan
10-16-2012, 07:23 PM
I sure hope so, that Reese is working on figuring out how to keep both Nicks and Cruz...have a feeling that Cruz will get a new contract during the bye week!!

That would make sense

Rudyy
10-16-2012, 07:24 PM
Wow, that's pretty impressive. Cruz is so talented.

GameTime
10-16-2012, 07:32 PM
keep it going Vic........keep it going....

RoanokeFan
10-16-2012, 07:38 PM
keep it going Vic........keep it going....

I sure hope JR can sign Nicks and Cruz to keep Eli Company for another 4 years or so

Marvelousmik
10-16-2012, 07:50 PM
... he literally can not be covered

You just said the magic words. And this my friend is why i believe he is the best receiver the giants has ever had

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 07:52 PM
You just said the magic words. And this my friend is why i believe he is the best receiver the giants has ever had

except that Nicks is better.

But all time Nicks #1, Cruz #2, and they are both on the same team at the same time, and roughly the same age. Pretty incredible.

joemorrisforprez
10-16-2012, 07:57 PM
This is what they need to staple to Gilbride's forehead the week before the Philly rematch.....



*The Giants improved to 39-10 under Tom Coughlin when they have a back rush for at least 100 yards. They are 61-25 when the team rushes for at least 100 yards and 17-31 when it doesn’t.

JayMas9
10-16-2012, 07:58 PM
It's funny you say that, while walking my dog this morning I thought about how Cruz just manages to get open no matter how they defend him. It was most evident when Nicks was oput injured.Yea, I agree, he really proved that while Nicks helps any gameplan tremendously, Cruz has the ability to get open against any defense with or without him.

JayMas9
10-16-2012, 08:02 PM
This is what they need to staple to Gilbride's forehead the week before the Philly rematch.....We won a superbowl last year with the 32nd ranked rushing attack in the NFL, this team since 09 is just as capable of winning a game through the air just as much as it is on the ground. I don't know how anyone brings this statistic up anymore. We're a top 3 NFL passing attack with arguably the best tandem of starting WRs in the league and one of the best quarterbacks in the league. Gilbride needs nothing taped to his forehead.

joemorrisforprez
10-16-2012, 08:10 PM
We won a superbowl last year with the 32nd ranked rushing attack in the NFL, this team since 09 is just as capable of winning a game through the air just as much as it is on the ground. I don't know how anyone brings this statistic up anymore. We're a top 3 NFL passing attack with arguably the best tandem of starting WRs in the league and one of the best quarterbacks in the league. Gilbride needs nothing taped to his forehead.

One more time....



The Giants are 61-25 when the team rushes for at least 100 yards and 17-31 when it doesn’t.


The Giants almost missed the playoffs because of a lack of commitment to the running game.....when they recommitted, they rolled.

If the Giants took the same gameplan to Philly that they took to San Francisco, they would have kicked that Wide 9 up and down the field.

I like Gilbride, but his gameplans routinely blow against the Eagles, and the main reason is because UNLIKE LAST WEEK, he bails on the run in the 2nd half against the Eagles.

The record is what is it.....1 Win, 8 Losses in the last 9 games v. the Eagles.

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 08:11 PM
The giants run the ball more when they have the lead.

You have the cause and effect backwards.

RoanokeFan
10-16-2012, 08:13 PM
except that Nicks is better.

But all time Nicks #1, Cruz #2, and they are both on the same team at the same time, and roughly the same age. Pretty incredible.

+1

joemorrisforprez
10-16-2012, 08:13 PM
The giants run the ball more when they have the lead.

You have the cause and effect backwards.

That Philly game was tight.....both teams struggled running the ball in the 1st half.

One team stayed with it in the 2nd half, and won the game. It's really that simple.

TheEnigma
10-16-2012, 08:14 PM
I'd be more interested to see the actual YPA of our running game when we won 61 times versus the 25 times we lost with 100+ yards on the ground. You can easily reach 100 on the ground or 300 in the air if you're stubborn enough to get there but it doesn't mean it was effective.

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 08:16 PM
That Philly game was tight.....both teams struggled running the ball in the 1st half.

One team stayed with it in the 2nd half, and won the game. It's really that simple.

And the eagles almost lost!

A team who is winning the game will run the ball more and try to run down the clock.

joemorrisforprez
10-16-2012, 08:17 PM
I'd be more interested to see the actual YPA of our running game when we won 61 times versus the 25 times we lost with 100+ yards on the ground. You can easily reach 100 on the ground or 300 in the air if you're stubborn enough to get there but it doesn't mean it was effective.

It appears there is a very strong statistical correlation between getting 100 yards and winning the game.

There's also a strong statistical correlation between the Giants getting pass-happy v. the Eagles and losing 8 of the last 9 games.

joemorrisforprez
10-16-2012, 08:19 PM
And the eagles almost lost!

A team who is winning the game will run the ball more and try to run down the clock.

And at the end of the game, if the Giants ran the ball, instead of passing to Barden and getting a penalty, we'd probably be 5-1 right now.

Another huge error was Eli's pick in the end zone......had they gone back to the run, you're in a situation where in a worst case scenario you kick a FG.

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 08:19 PM
It appears there is a very strong statistical correlation between getting 100 yards and winning the game.

Right, when the giants are not trailing and trying to catch up, they run the ball more.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/establishment-clause

TheEnigma
10-16-2012, 08:19 PM
It appears there is a very strong statistical correlation between getting 100 yards and winning the game.

There's also a strong statistical correlation between the Giants getting pass-happy v. the Eagles and losing 8 of the last 9 games.

Aren't we also 8-1 without Nicks or some record of that sort? I know you watched the 49ers game and a good chunk of those yards came AFTER we already had the game in hand. We carved them up with the pass first and once we reached the 4th quarter, we just cleaned them up since they were still worried about our receivers carving them up.

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 08:20 PM
And at the end of the game, if the Giants ran the ball, instead of passing to Barden and getting a penalty, we'd probably be 5-1 right now.

Which has no effect at all on your theory that the giants need to run for 100 yards to win.

joemorrisforprez
10-16-2012, 08:22 PM
Right, when the giants are not trailing and trying to catch up, they run the ball more.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/establishment-clause

This story is 10 years old, so it's not very relevant to a discussion about Gilbride's crappy gameplans against the Eagles.

joemorrisforprez
10-16-2012, 08:25 PM
Which has no effect at all on your theory that the giants need to run for 100 yards to win.

It's not a theory. Sure, Giants have won games with less than 100 yards...but the statistics prove the benefits of sticking to the run.

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 08:25 PM
This story is 10 years old, so it's not very relevant to a discussion about Gilbride's crappy gameplans against the Eagles.

The story is a hell of a lot more relevant to the concept of a team winning more when they run the ball for over 100 yards, than any discussion about the eagles game.

MikeSherrard
10-16-2012, 08:26 PM
Nice numbers by Shockey

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 08:26 PM
It's not a theory. Sure, Giants have won games with less than 100 yards...but the statistics prove the benefits of sticking to the run.

No, the statistics show that a team with a lead runs the ball more. Not that they had to run the ball to get the lead.

You are confusing cause and effect.

TheEnigma
10-16-2012, 08:27 PM
This story is 10 years old, so it's not very relevant to a discussion about Gilbride's crappy gameplans against the Eagles.

Well the Eagles have a superior secondary to the 49ers and the few times we did attempt to run the ball, it was stuffed pretty well. If anyone has to be "blamed" for that Eagles loss more than anyone else, it would be the defense for not being able to generate turnovers on a QB who is pretty bad about coughing up the ball this year.

We got 3 INTs off of Alex Smith and managed to build a multiple possession lead, which in turn lead to us pounding the rock more and taking less risky chances with the aerial game.

joemorrisforprez
10-16-2012, 08:39 PM
No, the statistics show that a team with a lead runs the ball more. Not that they had to run the ball to get the lead.

You are confusing cause and effect.

So, I guess I didn't see the Giants ram the ball down the 49ers throats to open the 2nd half after that great Wilson return?

And when the Giants got the ball back after those interceptions, those FGs weren't the result of incompletions?

The most dominating wins of the season so far have been built on pounding the ball.

Our 2 losses this year.....
Cowboys.....Bradshaw 17 rushes
Eagles.....Bradshaw 13 rushes.

In the 4 wins, Tampa was out of hand....that was all Eli because they had no choice. But even then, Andre Brown had success in limited work after Bradshaw went down. And then the Giants hammered the Panthers, Cleveland, and San Francisco because they ran early and stayed with it.

No matter how you slice it, running the ball is still a huge part of winning in the NFL, and the stats bear it out.

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 08:45 PM
The most dominating wins of the season so far have been built on pounding the ball.

The most dominating wins lets the giants run the ball more! If the giants were trailing by lets say 10 in the second half to the 49ers, would they have been able to run the ball 20 times? Of course not, they would have to throw to catch up.

The reason they ran the ball so much was BECAUSE they were winning.


At the end of the first half the giants had 11 carries for 23 yards. That was certainly not the reason they were winning the game.

The second half, once they were ahead by a TD, they started running more, and as the lead grew, they ran a higher and higher percentage of the plays.


Yes, running the ball is important, but teams run more when games are close or they are leading, teams pass more when they are behind.

TheEnigma
10-16-2012, 08:52 PM
Not sure I'd really count the Cowboys game either. I mean, Diehl was still starting and we know now that Beatty is like a Greek God compared to him when it comes to run blocking. It makes life much easier for your running game when your OTs have enough athleticism to set the edge.

Harooni
10-16-2012, 11:53 PM
Not sure I'd really count the Cowboys game either. I mean, Diehl was still starting and we know now that Beatty is like a Greek God compared to him when it comes to run blocking. It makes life much easier for your running game when your OTs have enough athleticism to set the edge. nice you went with sehorn excellent choice

http://www.theboys.cn/simg/underwear/J/Jason-Sehorn/JasonSehorn02.jpg

JayMas9
10-17-2012, 12:49 AM
The giants run the ball more when they have the lead.

You have the cause and effect backwards.Thank you. Case in point San Fran this past weekend. Eli goes for 178 in the first half...finishes with a hair over 190, because they built a lead on the passing game, and then shoved it down San Fran's throats while playing smothering defense.

JayMas9
10-17-2012, 12:52 AM
It's not a theory. Sure, Giants have won games with less than 100 yards...but the statistics prove the benefits of sticking to the run.Not to mention the bulk of that record you share...outside of the obvious "we run the ball more with the lead statistics" was built up not int he last 2 years when the Giants have truly developed a lethal passing game which is capable of winning games by itself (see last year).