PDA

View Full Version : Giants defensive rankings, not as bad as I thought, but not good



TroyArcher
12-10-2012, 03:15 PM
Stats don't tell the everything but they do tell something:

25th in the NFL giving up 270 yards per game, not very good, I still compare all Giants Defenses to the 86 Giants, probably unfair
9th in scoring at 20.8 points per game, better than I thought
12 in sacks with 31, very disappointing - Osi and Tuck in particular
2nd in interceptions with 20, Stevie Brown, who would have known
21st in Rushing defense at 123 per game, I believe TC used the word soft
27th against the pass, pathetic

Fewell has a SB ring but the D is not good and under-performing in my opinion.

Ruttiger711
12-10-2012, 03:21 PM
Stats don't tell the everything but they do tell something:

25th in the NFL giving up 270 yards per game, not very good, I still compare all Giants Defenses to the 86 Giants, probably unfair
9th in scoring at 20.8 points per game, better than I thought
12 in sacks with 31, very disappointing - Osi and Tuck in particular
2nd in interceptions with 20, Stevie Brown, who would have known
21st in Rushing defense at 123 per game, I believe TC used the word soft
27th against the pass, pathetic

Fewell has a SB ring but the D is not good and under-performing in my opinion.

We've been fortunate with the turnovers and stops at the right times.... that IS part of a good defense.. however Im not surprised at all about the pass and rush rankings. It's pretty clear when you watch them on the field... and why I'm never at ease with them on the field.

Buddy333
12-10-2012, 03:56 PM
The only numbers that count are the ones on the score board. There are only 8 teams that have allowed less points and all but one of those teams are all very close to the same number.

Rudyy
12-10-2012, 03:58 PM
Stats don't tell the everything but they do tell something:25th in the NFL giving up 270 yards per game, not very good, I still compare all Giants Defenses to the 86 Giants, probably unfair9th in scoring at 20.8 points per game, better than I thought12 in sacks with 31, very disappointing - Osi and Tuck in particular2nd in interceptions with 20, Stevie Brown, who would have known21st in Rushing defense at 123 per game, I believe TC used the word soft27th against the pass, patheticFewell has a SB ring but the D is not good and under-performing in my opinion.I think underperforming is the correct word.

PRGiant
12-10-2012, 04:03 PM
How about second in creating turnovers? Forgot that one?

Kruunch
12-10-2012, 04:04 PM
Stats don't tell the everything but they do tell something:

25th in the NFL giving up 270 yards per game, not very good, I still compare all Giants Defenses to the 86 Giants, probably unfair
9th in scoring at 20.8 points per game, better than I thought
12 in sacks with 31, very disappointing - Osi and Tuck in particular
2nd in interceptions with 20, Stevie Brown, who would have known
21st in Rushing defense at 123 per game, I believe TC used the word soft
27th against the pass, pathetic

Fewell has a SB ring but the D is not good and under-performing in my opinion.

Just to add another stat ... 7th in red zone defense.

To understand the stats you have to understand PF's defensive scheme. He plays a lot of Nickle and Cover 2. It's a soft defense meant to not give up the big play and capitalize on opponents' mistakes by having players always around the ball.

By and large he accomplishes this. Poor yards per game given up is due to allowing all the intermediate stuff. Above average red zone defense (7th) limits scoring (also seen in the 9th ranked in points allowed). It also produces a high turnover ratio which we have (currently 6th with +14).

It's effective ... just not my personal style. I don't like defenses that give up tons of yards and rely on stout red zone stands (seems like putting your back against the wall as a mentality). I also don't like defenses that rely on turnovers since they're never guaranteed (sort of like relying on defensive scoring).

If our defense tightens up this post season like it did last post season, then I think we'll be fine. If not, it's gonna be a short ride come January (if we make it to that point even).

Parademon
12-10-2012, 04:13 PM
Basically we have a bend but don't break D this yr. We give up a ton of yds per game but only giving up an avg of 20 ppg. Do I wish it was 5-6 pts lower, heck yeah, but our O is very prolific & have scored more pts than anyone in the NFC & only NE & Denver have put up more pts than us this yr. We avg 28 ppg.

Only reason we lost to the Skins is the game plan on Offense stank & the O & ST kept shooting itself in the foot with stupid penalties. I heard people bashing the D but they gave up 10 pts as the RG turd fumble turned into a TD can't really be blamed on them. We should have lit that team up thru the air the entire 2nd half. No way they could have matched us score for score. The Saints couldn't & they have a way more potent O than the Skins do.

Ruttiger711
12-10-2012, 04:23 PM
Just to add another stat ... 7th in red zone defense.

To understand the stats you have to understand PF's defensive scheme. He plays a lot of Nickle and Cover 2. It's a soft defense meant to not give up the big play and capitalize on opponents' mistakes by having players always around the ball.

By and large he accomplishes this. Poor yards per game given up is due to allowing all the intermediate stuff. Above average red zone defense (7th) limits scoring (also seen in the 9th ranked in points allowed). It also produces a high turnover ratio which we have (currently 6th with +14).

It's effective ... just not my personal style. I don't like defenses that give up tons of yards and rely on stout red zone stands (seems like putting your back against the wall as a mentality). I also don't like defenses that rely on turnovers since they're never guaranteed (sort of like relying on defensive scoring).

If our defense tightens up this post season like it did last post season, then I think we'll be fine. If not, it's gonna be a short ride come January (if we make it to that point even).

7th in the red zone is great, definitely great.

The problem is with the way they let the ball get moved on them between the 20's, this wears the D out, moreso than when people blame the offense for not giving them the rest. It's the D's job to get their own asses off the field and if they're giving up only 3 or no points on early drives GREAT... but it sometimes means they're doing it giving up 10 play and 12 play drives with more than their share of demoralizing 3rd and 4th down conversions. I dont buy that thats the way they want it to be... getting beat on like that only to solidify (sometimes) at the end. Its happened all year long and by mid 3rd quarter they're wiped. This can catch up to them.

Toadofsteel
12-10-2012, 04:36 PM
I think the reason we don't like this bend dont break style is 2 reasons:

1) It's high-risk/high-reward. Every play could be a huge game changing turnover, or it could be a long completion. Witness Brees' long completion to Colston, followed by Stevie intercepting another long completion attempt on pretty much the same play call the very next play.

2) Players that don't have the best stamina in the world will get winded playing for such a defense. It depends on the offense sustaining a long drive to give the defense time to rest. If the offense has a three-and-out, the results are devastating.

3) It's not what Giants fans from any time up until as recent as 2007 would call "GIANTS" brand defense. It's been nearly 30 years since the pass rush has NOT been the primary facet of the defense. It's part of our fabric as part of the Giants nation, and to see it so casually disregarded gives us all (myself included) fits. After all, it was our fierce pass rush that exposed Tom Brady as mere human. By the same notion, PF was able to get it done vs Brady as well, with his own back-end style. I still don't think he really is the man for the job, but there's no arguing that he did help bring us a super bowl victory.

TroyArcher
12-10-2012, 04:37 PM
How about second in creating turnovers? Forgot that one?

I posted 2nd in Ints?

Kruunch
12-10-2012, 04:38 PM
7th in the red zone is great, definitely great.

The problem is with the way they let the ball get moved on them between the 20's, this wears the D out, moreso than when people blame the offense for not giving them the rest. It's the D's job to get their own asses off the field and if they're giving up only 3 or no points on early drives GREAT... but it sometimes means they're doing it giving up 10 play and 12 play drives with more than their share of demoralizing 3rd and 4th down conversions. I dont buy that thats the way they want it to be... getting beat on like that only to solidify (sometimes) at the end. Its happened all year long and by mid 3rd quarter they're wiped. This can catch up to them.

I don't like the scheme because it keeps the defense on the field too long and is demoralizing when teams eat up huge chunks of yards. It also allows teams to potentially control the clock on us.

rainierjef
12-10-2012, 04:41 PM
Stats don't tell the everything but they do tell something:

25th in the NFL giving up 270 yards per game, not very good, I still compare all Giants Defenses to the 86 Giants, probably unfair
9th in scoring at 20.8 points per game, better than I thought
12 in sacks with 31, very disappointing - Osi and Tuck in particular
2nd in interceptions with 20, Stevie Brown, who would have known
21st in Rushing defense at 123 per game, I believe TC used the word soft
27th against the pass, pathetic

Fewell has a SB ring but the D is not good and under-performing in my opinion.
Osi is a sack and a half short of JPP. Tuck is 3.5 short of JPP. Two of Osi's sacks came with fumbles. I think fans are spoiled with sack numbers.

Ruttiger711
12-10-2012, 04:48 PM
Osi is a sack and a half short of JPP. Tuck is 3.5 short of JPP. Two of Osi's sacks came with fumbles. I think fans are spoiled with sack numbers.

The numbers by themselves CAN be misleading... meaning you can have thin sack numbers and still have constant, consistent pressure, but i think we all know we're not getting that either.

RoanokeFan
12-10-2012, 04:51 PM
Injuries have required us to make adjustments and while we've bent, we've not broken. This is the part of the season when improvement is key to winning. I think we are seeing enough improvement on offense and defense to see us through the playoffs. I have to say, for the most part, Special Teams has been quite a pleasant surprise. The coverage team has been morfe effective than I can ever remember.

We need to win in all three phases to get to the big dance.

rainierjef
12-10-2012, 04:52 PM
The numbers by themselves CAN be misleading... meaning you can have thin sack numbers and still have constant, consistent pressure, but i think we all know we're not getting that either. Even from JPP, so is it scheme,personnel, or team are more prepared for neutralizing our pass rush.

TroyArcher
12-10-2012, 08:26 PM
Osi is a sack and a half short of JPP. Tuck is 3.5 short of JPP. Two of Osi's sacks came with fumbles. I think fans are spoiled with sack numbers.

D-line has been very inconsistent with pressure all year. Need to pick it up now and through the playoffs if they want another SB trophy.

Sarcasman
12-10-2012, 10:37 PM
Creating turnovers. Hilarious.

bleeding blue
12-10-2012, 10:49 PM
Our D seems to be very good on our side of the 50 and horrid on the opponent side of the 50. I could be completely wrong but it seems as if its redzone deadzone for our D this year...Any stats backing that up?

L.T.56
12-10-2012, 10:51 PM
well the d looked atrocious last year until that playoff run. there pressure was nowhere to be seen and then all of a sudden from atlanta to new england they were just dominant.

Ruttiger711
12-10-2012, 11:26 PM
Creating turnovers. Hilarious. That's just it - turnovers are the gravy of good defensive plays but in no way should be counted on as a given in the gameplan.

JJC7301
12-10-2012, 11:48 PM
They do a lot of bending, but not as much breaking.

Still, for all of the attention that we pay to the d-lline and secondary in our drafts, I expect a more dominant and consistent overall D. I'm really not satisfied and won't be until they're consistently good like the Steelers always are and the 49ers have become.

And I still don't trust Fewell. I don't know what it is. I know that he's got the SB ring and I give him credit for the way that the D played in last years playoffs, but I just expect more from our D. I also blame Tuck and Osi.

Sarcasman
12-13-2012, 08:53 PM
That's just it - turnovers are the gravy of good defensive plays but in no way should be counted on as a given in the gameplan.


Sometimes they're just gravy.

joemorrisforprez
12-13-2012, 09:44 PM
I don't know what the team stat is.....but I'd guess the Giants are among the worst defenses in the league in surrendering big plays.

Buddy333
12-13-2012, 09:58 PM
I don't know what the team stat is.....but I'd guess the Giants are among the worst defenses in the league in surrendering big plays.I think they are but the stat that matter the most is points allowed and they are one of the better teams.

Cloud57
12-13-2012, 10:42 PM
The Giants need to seriously upgrade this defense, I'm tired of watching this defense come out flat year after year. Can't stop the run, can't cover receivers, can't rush the QB.

Buddy333
12-13-2012, 11:00 PM
It can be frustrating at times watching them give up yardage but the most important thing is points allowed. As long as they can keep points off the board I'd be happy with that.