Big Blue Huddle

When I look at the 2023 Giants I see an enormous imbalance between the performance of the offense versus defense.

By no means do I think the defense was elite in any way however I believe it was at least average across everything and maybe slightly above average in particular areas.

When I see the offense, I see completely subpar bottom 25th percentile in every facet of the offense from pass and run (especially consistency), blocking, WR ability to consistently separate, passing without a purpose to create real advancement down the field, lack of elite and consistent running, etc.  nothing good.

In this 2025 draft, if all of a sudden I see the Giants filling so-called holes on defense when much greater enormous holes and problems exist on offense, I will be livid.

We need a new QB, stud WR, RB1, a day 1 starting Guard and a real good all around TE.

Forget that we invested in Eze and McKethan.  They added nothing.  I dont care that we have a new OL coach.  Maybe the ingredients still are terrible.

Focus on the friggin offense please Joe Schoen.

Quote from: Philosophers on April 17, 2024, 12:21:24 PMBy no means do I think the defense was elite in any way however I believe it was at least average across everything and maybe slightly above average in particular areas.

I can't agree with that.  They were horrific at stopping the run.  29th in yards per game.  31st in yards per carry.  A defense that cannot stop the run is a bad defense.  The only thing they were good at is takeaways, and that tends to regress towards the mean.  And even with the big turnover margin they were still only 26th in points allowed.

Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 17, 2024, 01:03:39 PMI can't agree with that.  They were horrific at stopping the run.  29th in yards per game.  31st in yards per carry.  A defense that cannot stop the run is a bad defense.  The only thing they were good at is takeaways, and that tends to regress towards the mean.  And even with the big turnover margin they were still only 26th in points allowed.

Teams that are statistically abysmal vs the run tend to be statistically good against the pass, an ironic and somewhat humorous conflation.

Don't you think the problems of the defense were also at

Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 17, 2024, 01:03:39 PMI can't agree with that.  They were horrific at stopping the run.  29th in yards per game.  31st in yards per carry.  A defense that cannot stop the run is a bad defense.  The only thing they were good at is takeaways, and that tends to regress towards the mean.  And even with the big turnover margin they were still only 26th in points allowed.

Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 17, 2024, 01:03:39 PMI can't agree with that.  They were horrific at stopping the run.  29th in yards per game.  31st in yards per carry.  A defense that cannot stop the run is a bad defense.  The only thing they were good at is takeaways, and that tends to regress towards the mean.  And even with the big turnover margin they were still only 26th in points allowed.

Dont you think many of the problems of the D were because the offense could not score points, sustain drives and often out the D in bad spots?

Also forget stats.  What did yours eyes see?  I saw a team that struggled to score 15 points in a game.  I rarely saw a D that just rolled over and let the opposing team put up 30 every week.

Quote from: Philosophers on April 17, 2024, 02:56:24 PMDon't you think the problems of the defense were also at
Dont you think many of the problems of the D were because the offense could not score points, sustain drives and often out the D in bad spots?

Also forget stats.  What did yours eyes see?  I saw a team that struggled to score 15 points in a game.  I rarely saw a D that just rolled over and let the opposing team put up 30 every week.

Chaos theory reigns supreme in football. No one is ever wrong in their analysis because everything can be attributed to a causality of the critic's bias.

But yeah, even the best defense will break eventually after the offense commits enough consecutive 3 and outs or turnovers

Quote from: TONKA56 on April 17, 2024, 03:02:25 PMChaos theory reigns supreme in football. No one is ever wrong in their analysis because everything can be attributed to a causality of the critic's bias.

But yeah, even the best defense will break eventually after the offense commits enough consecutive 3 and outs or turnovers

I don't buy that excuse either because there was no great disparity in TOP.  29.26 on offense and 30.34 on defense.  And the Giants offense did not give up an inordinate number of turnovers, 12th fewest in the league.

It's easy to say ignore stats and go by the eye test, but stats impose a discipline on the eye test.  They confirm or challenge what you think the eye test is showing you.

I think the offense was so bad that by comparison the defense LOOKED better than it actually was.  Then you have to come up with 'eye test' reasons why the defense was better than it was, but when those eye test reasons are assessed by the discipline of stats they aren't born out.

My conclusion is that the defense was bad.  Not as horrifically bad as the offense, but bad nonetheless.  And that they were bad because they were bad, not because the offense was bad.  The offense managed to hold the ball half the time, so the defense wasn't (or shouldn't have been) exhausted.  The offense gave up fewer than average turnovers.  As for the '3&out" argument, the offense was just below average in average # of plays, so that doesn't wash either.

Just to clarify, this is in response both you and @philosopher.

Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 17, 2024, 04:04:53 PMI don't buy that excuse either because there was no great disparity in TOP.  29.26 on offense and 30.34 on defense.  And the Giants offense did not give up an inordinate number of turnovers, 12th fewest in the league.

It's easy to say ignore stats and go by the eye test, but stats impose a discipline on the eye test.  They confirm or challenge what you think the eye test is showing you.

I think the offense was so bad that by comparison the defense LOOKED better than it actually was.  Then you have to come up with 'eye test' reasons why the defense was better than it was, but when those eye test reasons are assessed by the discipline of stats they aren't born out.

My conclusion is that the defense was bad.  Not as horrifically bad as the offense, but bad nonetheless.  And that they were bad because they were bad, not because the offense was bad.  The offense managed to hold the ball half the time, so the defense wasn't (or shouldn't have been) exhausted.  The offense gave up fewer than average turnovers.  As for the '3&out" argument, the offense was just below average in average # of plays, so that doesn't wash either.

Just to clarify, this is in response both you and @philosopher.

I agree that the defense was bad. I'm not making any excuses. I'm just saying that people can always see what they want to see in football.

I'll cut to the chase:Giants have never won without an imposing defense. Ever. But also good component parts on offense. We need to dominate

Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 17, 2024, 04:04:53 PMI don't buy that excuse either because there was no great disparity in TOP.  29.26 on offense and 30.34 on defense.  And the Giants offense did not give up an inordinate number of turnovers, 12th fewest in the league.

It's easy to say ignore stats and go by the eye test, but stats impose a discipline on the eye test.  They confirm or challenge what you think the eye test is showing you.

I think the offense was so bad that by comparison the defense LOOKED better than it actually was.  Then you have to come up with 'eye test' reasons why the defense was better than it was, but when those eye test reasons are assessed by the discipline of stats they aren't born out.

My conclusion is that the defense was bad.  Not as horrifically bad as the offense, but bad nonetheless.  And that they were bad because they were bad, not because the offense was bad.  The offense managed to hold the ball half the time, so the defense wasn't (or shouldn't have been) exhausted.  The offense gave up fewer than average turnovers.  As for the '3&out" argument, the offense was just below average in average # of plays, so that doesn't wash either.

Just to clarify, this is in response both you and @philosopher.

Your eyes dont lie.  An offense can go 6-9 for 32 yards 0 first downs throwing then complete a 50 yarder because a CB fell down.  Resukt is 7-10 for 82 yards.  Pretty good if looking at stats but my eyes saw the truth which was mostly nothing then a lucky play.

Quote from: Philosophers on April 17, 2024, 02:56:24 PMDont you think many of the problems of the D were because the offense could not score points, sustain drives and often out the D in bad spots?

Also forget stats.  What did yours eyes see?  I saw a team that struggled to score 15 points in a game.  I rarely saw a D that just rolled over and let the opposing team put up 30 every week.

No, I think the D was bad all on their own.

Yes, the offense was awful. But this is what I've been saying for months. This team from top to bottom stinks - offense, defense, specials.

It's why trading draft picks isn't wise. It's why thinking that a 21-year-old QB is going to make a difference is illogical. And it's why we can't repeat the fallacy of 2022 that this is a multi-year rebuild.

That's why they should avoid drafting QB4. Ideally, they would trade down with Minn or LV, draft a WR, RT, and CB with 3 top 50 picks. Hope to get lucky with a RB and OG in the 3rd and 4th. And focus on development and progress this year.

After this season, move on from DJ, add 3 more starters from next year's draft class, and now you have the makings of a competitive team.

I'd rather roll the dice with a Geno-type QB in 2025 with extra starters and a competitive roster than take a chance on a rookie QB with a crap roster.

Quote from: Stringer Bell on April 17, 2024, 05:58:42 PMNo, I think the D was bad all on their own.

Yes, the offense was awful. But this is what I've been saying for months. This team from top to bottom stinks - offense, defense, specials.

It's why trading draft picks isn't wise. It's why thinking that a 21-year-old QB is going to make a difference is illogical. And it's why we can't repeat the fallacy of 2022 that this is a multi-year rebuild.

That's why they should avoid drafting QB4. Ideally, they would trade down with Minn or LV, draft a WR, RT, and CB with 3 top 50 picks. Hope to get lucky with a RB and OG in the 3rd and 4th. And focus on development and progress this year.

After this season, move on from DJ, add 3 more starters from next year's draft class, and now you have the makings of a competitive team.

I'd rather roll the dice with a Geno-type QB in 2025 with extra starters and a competitive roster than take a chance on a rookie QB with a crap roster.

I think we could have been a 0.500 or slightky better team with our D however no way with our O.

Quote from: TONKA56 on April 17, 2024, 04:24:40 PMI agree that the defense was bad. I'm not making any excuses. I'm just saying that people can always see what they want to see in football.

Yeah, that's why I added that last sentence.  I realized that although I was responding to you my post most of my points were rebutting @Philosopher.

Quote from: Philosophers on April 17, 2024, 05:37:04 PMYour eyes dont lie.  An offense can go 6-9 for 32 yards 0 first downs throwing then complete a 50 yarder because a CB fell down.  Resukt is 7-10 for 82 yards.  Pretty good if looking at stats but my eyes saw the truth which was mostly nothing then a lucky play.

If the stats don't back up what your eyes 'see' I'll believe the stats.  I have little faith in "eyes" that don't get reflected in stats.