PDA

View Full Version : 3rd and 1 with 3 minutes to play



eastbayblue
10-22-2012, 01:53 PM
I am continually amazed at how we continue to call high risk pass plays on 3rd and short. With 3 minutes to go if we convert there the game is basically over. What do we do, we throw a pass down the sidelines to Nicks with a low probability of it being caught. Why not a short slant? Not understanding this philosophy???

Kruunch
10-22-2012, 02:01 PM
I am continually amazed at how we continue to call high risk pass plays on 3rd and short. With 3 minutes to go if we convert there the game is basically over. What do we do, we throw a pass down the sidelines to Nicks with a low probability of it being caught. Why not a short slant? Not understanding this philosophy???

I feel the same way.

However here is are philosophies behind throwing that on third and short:

1) If they man up on the wide (which they almost always will on third and short) he's going to throw the Go route every time.

2) Throwing that pass can either buy you an interception (basically a short punt), a TD, a reception and move the chains, a penalty and move the chains (this is why in today's NFL it's not considered a low percentage pass anymore) or an incompletion and punt. GB's entire offense is predicated on this logic (and obviously works very well ... note the difference with the replacement refs who weren't calling as many interference calls).

3) This is a sight adjustment by Eli depending on the defense shown. It's not Gilbride calling it (a rather common mistake among posters here).

I'm not a huge fan of it myself, but you can't argue with the overall results (the past 5 years that they've been doing this).

JB456
10-22-2012, 02:46 PM
I feel the same way.

However here is are philosophies behind throwing that on third and short:

1) If they man up on the wide (which they almost always will on third and short) he's going to throw the Go route every time.

2) Throwing that pass can either buy you an interception (basically a short punt), a TD, a reception and move the chains, a penalty and move the chains (this is why in today's NFL it's not considered a low percentage pass anymore) or an incompletion and punt. GB's entire offense is predicated on this logic (and obviously works very well ... note the difference with the replacement refs who weren't calling as many interference calls).

3) This is a sight adjustment by Eli depending on the defense shown. It's not Gilbride calling it (a rather common mistake among posters here).

I'm not a huge fan of it myself, but you can't argue with the overall results (the past 5 years that they've been doing this).

I agree with this but whatever happened to going for the first down? It seems like 75% of 3rd and short plays the Giants have, they go for 7-10+ yards for whatever reason. I am a huge fan of getting the first down and extending the drive but the Giants don't seem to want to go by this philosophy.

GMENAGAIN
10-22-2012, 02:52 PM
I agree with this but whatever happened to going for the first down? It seems like 75% of 3rd and short plays the Giants have, they go for 7-10+ yards for whatever reason. I am a huge fan of getting the first down and extending the drive but the Giants don't seem to want to go by this philosophy.

You don't get a first down if you complete a long pass on 3rd and 2?

Based upon the Giants short yardage performance over the past several years, I'd say that we are probably more likely to get a first down on thrird and short with a long pass play than a running play . . . . .

Kruunch
10-22-2012, 02:53 PM
I agree with this but whatever happened to going for the first down? It seems like 75% of 3rd and short plays the Giants have, they go for 7-10+ yards for whatever reason. I am a huge fan of getting the first down and extending the drive but the Giants don't seem to want to go by this philosophy.

Part of it stems from how well you're running the ball.

Part of it stems from the look the defense gives you.

Part of it is trying to do something other than what the other team might be looking for.

But I also like the idea of imposing our will on the other team and just rushing it down their throats. Unfortunately we're not that type of team anymore. Fortunately, we're still effective.

Roosevelt
10-22-2012, 03:12 PM
I am continually amazed at how we continue to call high risk pass plays on 3rd and short. With 3 minutes to go if we convert there the game is basically over. What do we do, we throw a pass down the sidelines to Nicks with a low probability of it being caught. Why not a short slant? Not understanding this philosophy???

I've argued this point ad nauseum. I'm not sure why Eli Manning continues to attempt longer passes when all we need is a few yards for a first.

yoeddy
10-22-2012, 03:16 PM
I've argued this point ad nauseum. I'm not sure why Eli Manning continues to attempt longer passes when all we need is a few yards for a first.

Better to throw into single-coverage long than into heavy-coverage short. Am thrilled that we have a QB who is confident at hitting the long-ball...

yoeddy
10-22-2012, 03:17 PM
Btw - aren't there a lot of Jets fans out there today who are upset with their team for getting too conservative towards the end of the game?

jax5338
10-22-2012, 05:21 PM
You don't get a first down if you complete a long pass on 3rd and 2?

Based upon the Giants short yardage performance over the past several years, I'd say that we are probably more likely to get a first down on thrird and short with a long pass play than a running play . . . . .

this.

our 3rd and short running game is putrid, it has been for years. and opposing defenses are playing to defend the short pass on 3rd and short, so it leave chances up top. im pretty sure they have hit at least 3 big plays in such situation including cruz's 80 yard TD vs. bucs, hixon's long reception last week vs. SF, and i think cruz's long TD vs the browns.

DVision
10-22-2012, 05:24 PM
Was anyone upset when he completed the 31 yard pass to Marty B on 3rd and 1?? Didn't think so! Hindsight is always 20-20!!

chuckedafter5yards
10-22-2012, 05:55 PM
You need to run the ball in that situation based upon clock mgmt, a new set of downs there basically finishes the game. Cruz is ending up short of the first down marker too often.

slipknottin
10-22-2012, 05:57 PM
Defenses scheme to stop short throws. They are more susceptible to long plays on 3rd and short.

gumby74
10-22-2012, 06:40 PM
You don't get a first down if you complete a long pass on 3rd and 2?

Based upon the Giants short yardage performance over the past several years, I'd say that we are probably more likely to get a first down on thrird and short with a long pass play than a running play . . . . .

How about a short pass play? I agree we can't run worth crap, but going long is just rediculous. Going long is already a much smaller % completion in itself.

gumby74
10-22-2012, 06:41 PM
Defenses scheme to stop short throws. They are more susceptible to long plays on 3rd and short. That's all fine and good, but it's not a flow chart. Short of a busted coverage, shorter passes have a much higher % of completion than long ones.

RagTime Blue
10-22-2012, 06:50 PM
If there's a chance for a big play, you take it. Especially with our QB and WRs. No play is 100% effective.

DVision
10-22-2012, 07:14 PM
That's all fine and good, but it's not a flow chart. Short of a busted coverage, shorter passes have a much higher % of completion than long ones.

The back shoulder to Nicks wasn't even long! It was just a missed throw! Like I said nobody's complaining about the 31 yarder on 3rd and 1 earlier in the game!

slipknottin
10-22-2012, 07:14 PM
That's all fine and good, but it's not a flow chart. Short of a busted coverage, shorter passes have a much higher % of completion than long ones.

Not against a defense that is playing the short pass.

giantsfam04
10-22-2012, 07:15 PM
Its easy to understand really, you have a franchise qb. throwing to the best wr duo in the league, that's the philosophy.

GFiP
10-22-2012, 07:51 PM
That was one of the most moronic play calls I've ever seen. You get one yard, you pretty much seal a win. So they go for a route with high difficulty? I couldn't believe what I was watching.

GiantGremlin
10-22-2012, 08:07 PM
You need to run the ball in that situation based upon clock mgmt, a new set of downs there basically finishes the game. Cruz is ending up short of the first down marker too often.

Agreed, I don't see how you can justify not running in that situation regardless of circumstances - running time off the clock is also important.

giantsfan420
10-22-2012, 08:21 PM
That's all fine and good, but it's not a flow chart. Short of a busted coverage, shorter passes have a much higher % of completion than long ones.
that back shoulder fade to nicks on the 3rd and 1 was like an 8 yd route, def. was not "going long" on that one. The first half, ironically, we had a 3rd and 1, and we actually did go deep to Bennett for 30 plus yards. Go figure, you say shorter passes have the higher chance of success, yet on the 3rd down we went to a shorter throw, we failed to convert while the one we went deep we did convert.

Captain Chaos
10-22-2012, 08:45 PM
Just surprised that they didn't try to run, you should be able to make that one yard, and you run some time off the clock if you do that. Don't think throwing that pass once in awhile on 3rd but when you have the lead you need to keep that clock moving!

gumby74
10-22-2012, 10:26 PM
that back shoulder fade to nicks on the 3rd and 1 was like an 8 yd route, def. was not "going long" on that one. The first half, ironically, we had a 3rd and 1, and we actually did go deep to Bennett for 30 plus yards. Go figure, you say shorter passes have the higher chance of success, yet on the 3rd down we went to a shorter throw, we failed to convert while the one we went deep we did convert.

Take a % of short throws made vs long throws made. I'll bet you my house that shorter throws have a higher completion percentage. A back shoulder fade isn't exactly what I'd call an easy throw to make. All I'm saying is go for a higher percentage play. Had we run the ball and not made it, i would have been perfectly fine with that. At least you're eating up clock.