PDA

View Full Version : Giants Running Game...



Shockeyitus
01-11-2012, 05:29 PM
If the Giants run the ball the way the did last week... they win the game! Bradshaw needs to be a beast and start wiggling through tackles... Jacobs needs to get lower when takinga hits. Hawk, Bishop and the safeties want no part of Jacobs.

GameTime
01-11-2012, 05:32 PM
If the Giants run the ball the way the did last week... they win the game! Bradshaw needs to be a beast and start wiggling through tackles... Jacobs needs to get lower when takinga hits. Hawk, Bishop and the safeties want no part of Jacobs.</P>


what about the Giants D?? You automatically assume they will limit Rodgers and the Packeer's O??</P>


The Giants need to do a lot more then just run the ball well. That will have a positive effect but thats notall they need to do.</P>


</P>

krygny
01-11-2012, 06:52 PM
Forget about the run. It's time, we as Giants fans, got over this ideological and emotional attachment to establishing the run. It's not like we have a dominant running game. The Giants running game is mediocre. Jacobs and Bradshaw are ordinary. Let's face it. Solid, but ordinary.

Sustaining drives, managing the time of possession, moving the chains and keeping Rodgers off the field won't work. Even if we're successful at executing, we'll keep it close but we'll lose. You have to assume the defense will NOT stop Rodgers in any meaningful way. Nobody else has all year.

Why would you take the ball out of the hands of your best player? Eli is our biggest weapon and he's got weapons. Lots of dangerous weapons. GB has the worst pass defense in the league. By A LOT!! They give up 300 yards/game. Eli will shred them. That will open up big plays for the running game but there will be fewer running plays. If, for example, we have 60 offensive plays, the split should be about 35/25 pass/run.

We have been riding on Eli's back all year. It would be incompetent and irresponsible for Coughlin, et al, to do anything different now. You live or die with your best player. Coughlin will put the ball in Eli's hands.

***

I'm drawing a blank on which game it was this year - 4th and long from our own 30 with under 2:00 to go and Coughlin went for it, and Eli made it. That play spoke volumes about what Coughlin thinks of Eli. Tough call, gutsy call but he couldn't bring himself to take the ball away from Eli. Somebody please remind me ...

BlueBlitzer
01-11-2012, 06:57 PM
However a dominate running game ( which I believe the Giants have ) Makes the safetys cheat up. And thats when Eli's play action fake is Deadly.

krygny
01-11-2012, 07:10 PM
However a dominate running game ( which I believe the Giants have ) Makes the safetys cheat up. And thats when Eli's play action fake is Deadly.
The Giants were ranked 32 in rushing. So, the other 31 teams were more dominant.

When I said mediocre, solid and ordinary, I was really being kind.

gsp3
01-11-2012, 07:36 PM
Forget about the run. It's time, we as Giants fans, got over this ideological and emotional attachment to establishing the run. It's not like we have a dominant running game. The Giants running game is mediocre. Jacobs and Bradshaw are ordinary. Let's face it. Solid, but ordinary.



What?! You couldn't be more wrong if you think the Giants will pull out a win without the run game. The run game is what makes Eli better. It establishes the play-action and lets us control the time of possession a lot better.

Don't think we're going to win this game without Bradshaw and Jacobs. If you think letting Eli throw it every play will help us win you're dead wrong--it will only lead to turnovers.

We ran ~180 yards last Sunday and you think we should abandon it against the 32nd ranked D in the NFL? No way. Gilbride will focus on balance; aggressive balance.

RoanokeFan
01-11-2012, 07:44 PM
Forget about the run. It's time, we as Giants fans, got over this ideological and emotional attachment to establishing the run. It's not like we have a dominant running game. The Giants running game is mediocre. Jacobs and Bradshaw are ordinary. Let's face it. Solid, but ordinary.

Sustaining drives, managing the time of possession, moving the chains and keeping Rodgers off the field won't work. Even if we're successful at executing, we'll keep it close but we'll lose. You have to assume the defense will NOT stop Rodgers in any meaningful way. Nobody else has all year.

Why would you take the ball out of the hands of your best player? Eli is our biggest weapon and he's got weapons. Lots of dangerous weapons. GB has the worst pass defense in the league. By A LOT!! They give up 300 yards/game. Eli will shred them. That will open up big plays for the running game but there will be fewer running plays. If, for example, we have 60 offensive plays, the split should be about 35/25 pass/run.

We have been riding on Eli's back all year. It would be incompetent and irresponsible for Coughlin, et al, to do anything different now. You live or die with your best player. Coughlin will put the ball in Eli's hands.

***

I'm drawing a blank on which game it was this year - 4th and long from our own 30 with under 2:00 to go and Coughlin went for it, and Eli made it. That play spoke volumes about what Coughlin thinks of Eli. Tough call, gutsy call but he couldn't bring himself to take the ball away from Eli. Somebody please remind me ...



So you advocate throwing the ball 60 - 80 times?

krygny
01-11-2012, 09:13 PM
...
We ran ~180 yards last Sunday and you think we should abandon it against the 32nd ranked D in the NFL? No way. Gilbride will focus on balance; aggressive balance.
They have the 32nd rated<u><font size="4"> PASS DEFENSE!! </font></u>Their run defense is 14th (respectable). Therefore, we pass or lose. Just like everybody else in the NFL.

This is what I meant by an ideological adherence to strategy that can't win. We have the 5th rated passing offense and they have the worst passing defense. We have the WORST rushing offense in the league and they have a solid rushing defense, but based on one game, you think we should have our best player hand the ball to someone else.

krygny
01-11-2012, 09:14 PM
...

So you advocate throwing the ball 60 - 80 times?

I said nothing of the sort.

I can see debating the strategy with facts and stats, but don't criticize my post if you don't read it.

FourthAndOne
01-11-2012, 09:44 PM
...
*We ran ~180 yards last Sunday and you think we should abandon it against the 32nd ranked D in the NFL? No way. Gilbride will focus on balance; aggressive balance.
They have the 32nd rated<u><font size="4"> PASS DEFENSE!! </font></u>Their run defense is 14th (respectable). Therefore, we pass or lose. Just like everybody else in the NFL.

This is what I meant by an ideological adherence to strategy that can't win. We have the 5th rated passing offense and they have the worst passing defense. We have the WORST rushing offense in the league and they have a solid rushing defense, but based on one game, you think we should have our best player hand the ball to someone else.





I respectfully disagree.

First off, the Packers are a very strong offense and thus can get a lead quickly. As a result, other teams are forced to pass a lot to catch up, and also run a lot less. If you look at rushing yards per carry, the Packers Run D is pretty close to the end of the list as well, at 26th allowing 4.7 yards/carry. So their run D and pass D are suspect.

Also, the Giants' running game has improved a lot.

Week 1-12: 82.3 yards rushing/game, 3.18 yards per carry
Since week 12: 115.7 yards/game, 4.42 yards/carry

As a point of comparison, a 4.42 yards/carry for the year would place the Giants somewhere between 7th (4.5 yards/carry) and 11th (4.4 yds/carry) in the NFL. 115.7 yards/game isn't as impressive, it would place the giants at 17th. Obviously the Giants haven't been able to do this for the entire year, but the last couple of weeks at least the Giants rushing attack has been markedly better, not just in the Falcons game.

And what's wrong with having some balance?

Edit: The reason I looked at rushing yards per carry instead of total rushing yards, if it isn't clear, is because opponents that fall behind tend to pass more. The Packers are 5th in the league in fewest rushing attempts against, so looking at the average accounts for that.

krygny
01-11-2012, 10:08 PM
I agree, with both Jacobs and Bradshaw both healthy at the same, time the running game is now better than it was for most of the season when they were almost never healthy together. And I stated an example in my first post of what I think our run/pass balance should be. But we are not a run-first team anymore. Not even 50/50. We're a passing team in a passing league. I don't understand why that's so hard to accept.

buddy33
01-11-2012, 10:11 PM
The last time they played the Giants where running the ball well and then they stopped.

The better their run game the better their passing game can be. With the RB's the Giants have they can tire out a defense. Also, I believe the 1st big run Jacobs had the other day changed the game. They feed off of big man with ball.

miked1958
01-11-2012, 10:25 PM
If the Giants run the ball the way the did last week... they win the game! Bradshaw needs to be a beast and start wiggling through tackles... Jacobs needs to get lower when taking*a hits. Hawk, Bishop and the safeties want no part of Jacobs.
Remember Bradshaw was just returning from missing 4 games with the broken foot. I don't think he was 100% when we played them last time.

FourthAndOne
01-11-2012, 10:53 PM
I agree, with both Jacobs and Bradshaw both healthy at the same, time the running game is now better than it was for most of the season when they were almost never healthy together. And I stated an example in my first post of what I think our run/pass balance should be. But we are not a run-first team anymore. Not even 50/50. We're a passing team in a passing league. I don't understand why that's so hard to accept.



My bad. I thought you were implying something more extreme - I missed the 35/25 pass/run breakdown you mentioned. I agree with you that the passing game is better and that we are definitely not a run-first team. As long as the Giants run enough and successfully enough to keep the Packers D honest, it's all good.

Antwuan
01-12-2012, 12:29 AM
The running game will be very important, we have to chew up some clock to keep Rodgers and that Offense off the field. The running game has been a lot better lately and I hope it continues its recent success.