Field Gulls: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Check out our NFL Scoreboard: scores, schedule and blogs Bar-right-arrows



spread the word

New York Giants Strategic Tendencies: Defense

There's this guy at my work. He's mid-thirties; stout. In his work area he hangs a modest boom-box, hooked up to an Ipod, and from the way he passionately belts out choruses, you can tell his music is very important to him. The big lines and soaring hooks define him. If you'd ask him what music he likes, he'd certainly say "all kinds", but his playlists are strictly top 40. He walks slow, deliberate from his car, a gray hoodie worn thuggishly over his brow and eyes; Stitch open mouthed and innocent on its back. He has the body of a bouncer, and the presence of someone you wouldn't want to be cornered by, but a cherubic face. In guarded moments he whispers wide-eyed warmth about his children.

When Tiki Barber retired, it was little debated that the Giants would suffer, but their rush offense held steady and New York won the Super Bowl. This season they've performed an even more miraculous reversal. Losing two defensive ends, the legendary Michael Strahan and top ten sack artist Osi Umenyiora, but improving defensively. With all the names and accolades, it might be surprising to read New York was mediocre on defense in 2007: tenth ranked against the run, 15th against the pass and 14th overall. This season they're 11th against the run, ninth against the pass and eight overall. Maybe Strahan and Umenyiora weren't so important, or maybe we're just not looking hard enough.

Defense

The truth is, the 2007 Giants badly declined after losing Tiki Barber. Winning has a way of washing away all sins, but the Giants were a below average offense minus Barber, dropping ten spots overall, from ninth in 2006 to 19th in 2007. Dropping exactly where an informed fan would expect: passing and on third downs. The Giants, minus Barber's 7.2 receiving DPAR and without an adequate replacement, suffered collaterally. Manning was significantly worse on third down than he was on first or second down and was terrible under pressure. Among quarterbacks with thirty or more attempts under "pressure" (as defined by Football Outsiders), Manning was the worst in the NFL.

The offense did decline. Given time, so will the defense.

The loss of Umenyiora and Strahan removes Steve Spagnuolo's "Four Aces" package. Coined by Mike Tanier, Four Aces describes Spagnuolo's innovative four defensive end package. In it, rotation end Justin Tuck and linebacker Mathias Kiwanuka join Umenyiora and Strahan, creating a line consisting of four current, occasional or former defensive ends. The mismatches were overwhelming. Ends Tuck, Strahan and Umenyiora combined for 101 hurries (37), hits (32) and sacks (32). That, and a heavy dose of blitzing -- ranking in the top half of the NFL blitzing 5 (27.2%, ninth), 6+ (10.6%, tenth) and 7+ (2.1%, 12th) -- powered a sack happy defense especially effective on third down. The team's adjusted sack rate, already a robust 8.8%, first in the NFL, jumped to 12.6% on third downs, more than three percent higher than any other defense.

Through three games, that pressure has held. The Giants rank second in adjusted sack rate, 11.3%, and have thirteen sacks. Twelve of those sacks came against the Bengals and Rams. The Rams are the lesser team, and playing from deep deficits throughout accumulated sacks somewhat because of sheer desperation. In 54 offensive plays, the Rams faced nine third and long downs (7+ yard to the first), six of which were third and very long (10+ yards). Those desperation downs included two third and 16s and one third and 17, 19 and 28. My point isn't to malign the Giants defense, after all they put the Rams in such awful predicaments, but to point out that facing third and 19, the extreme dearth of potentially successful plays forces a quarterback to idle in the pocket just for lack of better options. The Rams suffered two sacks in their nine third and longs.

The Bengals have the lesser line. The once proud unit has fallen on dark days. Cincinnati ranks 23rd in pass protection and 32nd in adjusted line yards.

Does that impugn the Giants. No, not really. There's a kind of suck cap, where a good team can only be expected to dominate a miserable opponent so much before expectations become unrealistic. New York handled the Rams and their defense stifled Cinci's suddenly netless aerialists. But on a unit that's lost significant talent, two early stompings could be red herrings long forgotten by season's end.

My attitude is always trust talent. Though Justin Tuck looks primed for a series of dominant seasons and Fred Robbins continues his run as quiet badass in the interior, there's no losing a strong pass rushing linebacker in Kawika Mitchell, a top ten defensive end in Umenyiora, and a top ten all-time defensive end in Strahan, and avoiding decline. Much less improving.

Early impressions can be deceiving. I'm confident New York's defense, that has many a Seahawks fan quivering in their boots, is soon to show a softer side.

0 recs | Comment 66 comments | Digg!

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Will Tuck be matched up against Walter Jones?

If so that would be an awesome matchup!

If life gives you lemons, keep the receipt

by Bramlet A. on Oct 1, 2008 10:54 PM PDT   0 recs

i don't understand how the D is on the decline

because they lost Strahan to retirement and Kawika Mitchell?

Tuck (25 years old), Phillips (21), Ross (24), Coefield (24), Alford (25), Wilkinson (25), and Kiwanuka (25) – that seems like a pretty good young core, and they’ve been solid. i’m not sure what Kawika Mitchell you were watching last season. he was servicable but far from irreplaceable (or on the level of Strahan or Osi). if Wilkinson could stay healthy he’d actually be an upgrade over Mitchell.

also, as far as Jacobs goes, i agree with most of what you said. what you’re forgetting is that the Giants are three-deep at RB with two other guys that could start for most teams in the League with Derrick Ward and Ahmad Bradshaw. what makes the Giants’ rushing offense potent is not just Jacobs, it’s that they have change-of-pace backs behind him like Ward and Bradshaw that can both catch the football and do things that Jacobs can’t.

good luck on Sunday and with the rest of the season. i’ve always been a Holmgren fan.

by SBakerTheTouchdownMaker on Oct 2, 2008 6:11 AM PDT   0 recs

Great analysis

Meanwhile, it looks like the Big Blue View blog is upset that we’re not cowering about the mighty Giants. It’s a shame that while the majority of SBN have become hubs for in-depth coverage, there are still a handful that are satisfied with posting cheerleading pictures and rants against other blogs on the main page.

Anyway, keep it up John.

by katal on Oct 2, 2008 7:03 AM PDT   0 recs

hehe

At least our seagal was the cheerleader of the week, they gave our talent a proper evaluation there

by vanrijn on Oct 2, 2008 8:41 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Giants fans

In terms of Giants fans they should realize due to east coast bias there is no shortage of respect for the Giants in the press and by even many Seahawks fans. The authors here have taken the sublime approach of trying to verify that image of Giants supremacy with hard statistics which take time to mine or assemble. The ‘goodness’ of Giants offense and defense is mostly known but “if you want to know truth, you must doubt everything”…

by paul2 on Oct 2, 2008 9:31 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, but the Giants understand winning.

I’ve been through this before and I don’t care. I got the exact same response last season from Niners fans. In the long run, this stuff sorts itself out and I’ve long since moved on.

by John Morgan on Oct 2, 2008 9:48 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Ha

That comment struck me as well. Not only are they fired up over there over your analysis, there hasn’t been any posted over on their side, not even an attempt to refute what you’ve said. I hope you don’t piss them off so much that I get jumped at the game this weekend.

by bhoyer21 on Oct 2, 2008 10:08 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Analysis

There won’t be any attempt to refute John’s analysis, at least not from me. I am soooooo tired of the “the Giants really aren’t very good” arguments that it’s a waste of my time. The results have spoken for themselves.BTW, enjoy the game Sunday. You’re going to a Giants game, not a Jets one. You’ll be fine.

by ETVal on Oct 2, 2008 10:43 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

"The results have spoken for themselves."

See BrianL’s post on Results Based analysis. Really not that great of an idea — setting yourself up for a fall.

Quite close to home, in fact. See: 2007-2008 Seattle Mariners.

by redwolf75 on Oct 2, 2008 11:05 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

score more points than the oppoent

The Giants understand this better than anyone. The Rams clearly don’t have a grasp of this concept.

by MFAN on Oct 2, 2008 10:10 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It's hard for those involved with sports (Owners, coaches, players, fans)

to recognize that results-based analysis doesn’t tell the entire story. If you suggest that a team’s record or performance might not be sustainable based on peripheral evidence, many people are going to get downright angry.

I don’t know, perhaps this is a fanpost or front-page post topic idea.

by BrianL on Oct 2, 2008 10:48 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

What about the Giants isn't sustainable?

Outside of Eli Manning there isn’t much regression to the mean that can be expected. And even there it isn’t outlandish to expect him to still be improving slightly. Not improving to the level of “zomg Superbowl MVP!” but improving from what he was early last year.

Losing Strahan the Giants will lose some pass rush, but this was a team that was so backed up at defensive end they moved Kiwanuka to line backer (who they get back after he broke his leg late last year). So despite their losses along the line they still have Kiwanuka and Tuck on the ends and their normal defensive tackle rotation.

And thats just this year. Next year Osi will be back and their young defendeders will have another year of experience. Jerry Reese obviously needs more time before he can be properly evaluated, but so far he’s looked like an elite GM. As long as Eli can continue to avoid complete melt downs I don’t see any significant reason why the Giants success isn’t sustainable.

by Nate Dogg on Oct 2, 2008 2:35 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

What do you mean by that?

I don’t see anyone saying they’re going to go 16-0. So far they’ve beaten the Redskins, Rams, and Bengals, I don’t see how that’s playing above their talent level.

by Nate Dogg on Oct 2, 2008 2:43 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

John laid it out pretty well.

You can’t lose Strahan and Umenyiora without expecting some sort of a decline from their defensive unit. That’s probably going to show up in their record.

I’m not saying the Giants aren’t a bad team. I’m just saying they’re not as mind-blowingly awesome as a lot of people seem to think they are.

by BrianL on Oct 2, 2008 2:51 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree, but to what degree will they decline

I think where this piece is a bit lacking is looking at the replacements for the losses the Giants have sustained. Umenyiora and Strahan are great players, but the alternative to those two are Kiwanuka and Tuck. There is no doubt a drop off, but how substantial will it be?

by Nate Dogg on Oct 2, 2008 3:05 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I love Strahan and Osi

but I think you all are severely overrating the impact losing them should be having on the Giants. Last year the Giants had the best pass rush in the league in part because they had 4 high-quality DE’s. Osi got all the pub b/c he led the team in sacks, but 6 of those came in one glorious night against the Eagles and a backup rookie O-lineman. Tuck actually out-sacked him in the other 15 games. Two seasons ago Kiwanuka had an awesome rookie season, then was moved to linebacker where he performed well, but was not too great in pass coverage. He was still great at getting to the QB, and is set to thrive in that role full time again this year, back at DE.

Kawika Mitchell really isn’t that great of a LB: he’s serviceable, but not much of an upgrade over Wilkinson and/or Danny Clark, both of whom are probably an upgrade over Kiwanuka as LB’s. Losing Gibril Wilson probably hurts more than losing Mitchell, but Kenny Phillips looks like he’s gonna develop into a nice safety, though he’s not quite there yet. The secondary is certainly the weak thread of the Giants D, but I think it’s actually just as good with the potential to be a lot better than the secondary was last year, considering the general youth back there.

You say you can’t lose Stra and Osi without expecting a decline, but if you have a talented young defense whose best depth was at the positions they played, I don’t really agree with that. While I’d love to still have all 4 of them, I wouldn’t trade Tuck & Kiwanuka straight up for a healthy Osi and an in-shape but 36 y.o. Strahan right now, and I have a feeling the coaching staff feels the same way.

by cjmulrain on Oct 2, 2008 3:36 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Thanks for the intelligent response.

And to clarify, I don’t think Mitchell is a good linebacker, I think he’s a good pass rusher that fit well within Spagnuolo’s blitz heavy defense.

by John Morgan on Oct 2, 2008 3:44 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't know how much the defense will decline, there's a chance that it will decline to some degree.

Frankly I’m not sure why my particular post got twisted into a “BrianL thinks the Giants suck” subthread.

Me saying that “Results based analysis doesn’t tell the entire story” != “I think the Giants aren’t a good team.”

(And yes thank you for the intelligent, well thought out response)

by BrianL on Oct 2, 2008 3:46 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You couldn't be more wrong

Big Blue View is second to none when it comes to in depth coverage. But you can bet your Starbucks that if somebody is slamming our team, we’re going to take offense.

And yeah, we’re guys, we like to look at cheerleaders. You make it sound like a bad thing.

As far as all the stats, analysis, and videos go, all that matters is what Bill Parcells once said

“You are what your record says you are.”

Good luck Sunday. I look forward to your post-game eulog anaylsis

Giants fan from the womb to the tomb

by jrs1940 on Oct 2, 2008 10:53 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Actually, from first my first impression looking at your blog, katal couldn't be more right.

Your lead blogger didn’t attempt one bit to refute John’s points.

“Bet your Starbucks?” Troll Alert! Code Red!

by redwolf75 on Oct 2, 2008 10:58 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Nope, I didn't

My purpose was not to refute. My purpose was to point out the postings to BBV readers and let them do what they wanted with that. Didn’t feel the need to do anything else.

by ETVal on Oct 2, 2008 11:00 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

No

That wasn’t the point. There is a bigger discussion going on over at my site than there is here, and some of your folks are also over at BBV. I’m OK w/that, provided we all (my readers and the ones here) try to be reasonable. We can disagree — that’s the beauty of the format.

by ETVal on Oct 2, 2008 11:18 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Posting what John wrote on your blog without any sort of refutation

just to get people mad at FG/John isn’t reasonable.

If you have a problem with what he wrote, refute it. Otherwise ignore it.

by BrianL on Oct 2, 2008 11:26 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Ummm

You 12th Manboys were the first ones to invade. You’ll have to forgive us for being defensive, we’re not used to the winning tradition you Seahawk fans are.

redwolf, if your Lord and Master didn’t want his “objectivity” discovered, he shouldn’t have put it on the internet, someone might see it and want to comment on it.

By the way, Sbaker refuted his “defense in decline” comment in the FOURTH POST ON THIS THREAD, and not one of you had any response.

We’ll see who is in decline on Sunday I guess.

Giants fan from the womb to the tomb

by jrs1940 on Oct 2, 2008 11:50 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

just for the record

No one here is predicting the Hawks are going to come out and destroy the Giants. So don’t act like you’re right and we’re wrong just because the giants win.

by MFAN on Oct 2, 2008 11:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Feel free to ban them from your blog if they're causing you trouble.

That’s still no excuse for you to go trolling this blog.

by BrianL on Oct 2, 2008 11:55 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Are we causing trouble?

Hardly, just as you aren’t causing trouble on ours. Sorry, I thought you guys had more of a sense of humor.

Thanks Brian!

Giants fan from the womb to the tomb

by jrs1940 on Oct 2, 2008 12:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

John was slamming your team?

I think we need to go over the whole reading comprehension thing with you.

What John does with these game previews is purely objective. He takes the evidence available, processes it, and reports his findings. There’s no hidden agenda to bash other teams.

This blog is of the mindset that simple things like W/L records doesn’t tell the entire tale of a team’s performance. There are other factors that can indicate whether or not a certain level of success is sustainable.

by BrianL on Oct 2, 2008 11:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

And likewise, those same factors indicate whether or not a certain level of failure is sustainable.

In the first two losses of the season, the Seahawks were generating a ton of pressure on the quarterback. Normally this correlates into turnovers, but it just wasn’t happening.

Then in the third game, the good pressure was still there and magically the turnovers showed up. The lack of turnovers wasn’t sustainable based on the way the defense was playing.

This is just one example of why results-based analysis is flawed.

by BrianL on Oct 2, 2008 11:16 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

In short

The Giants are not as good as you think and the Seahawks are not as bad as you think.

by BrianL on Oct 2, 2008 11:21 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You're touchy

But I love you anyway, ya big lug!

Giants fan from the womb to the tomb

by jrs1940 on Oct 2, 2008 12:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Ugh. Every year the same thing.

Coffee reference? Check.
Weather reference? Check.
Questioning validity of the 12th Man? Check.

Dick Dastardly and Muttley with sick laughter

by Wayward Llama on Oct 2, 2008 12:12 PM PDT   0 recs

Seahawks will not win the Super Bowl

check

Giants fan from the womb to the tomb

by jrs1940 on Oct 2, 2008 12:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Seahawks will not win the Super Bowl

check

Giants fan from the womb to the tomb

by jrs1940 on Oct 2, 2008 12:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The hits keep coming.

I was sent an innocent seeming email from a Giants blogger asking for an interview. I don’t think I’m a big shot so I don’t tend to turn this stuff down. Here are the questions I was sent.

1) Earlier this week, a user at SeahawksHuddle.com (since been shut down) made some disparaging and offensive comments about the victims of 9-11. The reasoning behind his “jokes” were to spice up a bye-week and generate some tension heading into this weekend’s contest between the New York Giants and Seattle Seahawks. As both a Seahawks fan and blogger, what are your thoughts on that situation?

2) Looking ahead to Sunday, what is your biggest concern as a Seahawks fan?

3) In which area do you feel Seattle will be able to exploit New York?

4) How much of an impact do you think the returning Bobby Engram and Deion Branch will have this weekend?

5) It’s prediction time! How many points will the Giants win by this Sunday?

Growing up in New England I was taught to hate New York, but it never really stuck. I’m suddenly getting back in touch with my roots.

by John Morgan on Oct 2, 2008 12:33 PM PDT   0 recs

This SBN mandated five question thing is awful.

Are the admins really going to make you answer this shit?

by BrianL on Oct 2, 2008 12:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

No one forces me...

and I already turned down ETVal. This was from someone working for Madison Square Gardens asking for an interview. So much for that. Nevertheless, I agreed so I answered:

1) I have no idea what you’re talking about and no desire to find out. Any idiot can be inflammatory. Hype, publicity and public scorn only feeds the attention seeking behaviour.
 
2) Obviously losing. That’s such an open ended question, I don’t see what else I could respond. I don’t want the Seahawks to fall to 1-3.
 
3) Seattle’s run defense should put New York into bad down and distance, if not all game, frequently. Despite Eli’s recent lionization, after a call for his benching as late as last season, I’ve yet to see a real transformation. He’s the same inaccurate quarterback a consistent playoff can’t count on. If Seattle can contain New York’s rushing attack, it should exploit Manning’s on again off again play.
 
4) It’s impossible to say. No one knows what Branch is capable of returning from injury. He could be the rare player to regain proprioception quickly or like most recoveries from ligament damage, he could play at a lower level while he regains his confidence and sense of body. Same basic story on Bobby Engram. What he can contribute is dependent on factors I don’t know.
 
5) Eleventy billion. The World Champion New York Giants have steel in their veins and winning in their DNA; pigskin in their muscles and pigskin in their brains. 45 reanimated Jim Thorpe’s pumped on the clear couldn’t compete with Coughlin’s godlike Titans of the Gridiron.

I agree five questions sucks and I usually turn it down, but I’m trying to be less curmudgeonly.

by John Morgan on Oct 2, 2008 12:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The smartass route ...

was the right way to go with the last question, as it was presented in a patronizing manner.

by AK1984 on Oct 2, 2008 12:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

No matter the outcome, ...

I’d suggest treading water carefully with the first question. Hell, you might as well ignore it.

Although I’m very apathetic to the whole situation — which sounds remarkably callous in some respects, but that’s just my perspective — it’s definitely a sensitive subject for some people.

Then again, my advice isn’t always the best in these matters.

by AK1984 on Oct 2, 2008 12:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

So, to recap:

John points out some legitimate weaknesses on the Giants’ defense, using objective stats and breaking down game film.

The Giants fans dismiss the stats and spew tired cliches of “RESPECT!11” and “Play to win the game” and “the results speak for themselves.” Insert Starbucks joke here.

Sigh. Blog feuds are so boring.

by Benne on Oct 2, 2008 1:30 PM PDT   0 recs

If what I'm hearing is true

it didn’t help that some people who frequent this blog went over to their blog to troll.

by BrianL on Oct 2, 2008 1:32 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Meh, I'm staying out of it

Some people just take their sports way too seriously.

by Benne on Oct 2, 2008 1:42 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Me too, and it's a bit disappointing that some have

Insert gratuitous Dark Knight reference here:

“This blogosphere needs a better class of commenters, and I’m going to give it to them.”

by Benne on Oct 2, 2008 1:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I didn't see anyone trolling over there

it was a long thread though, I may have missed something

by Nate Dogg on Oct 2, 2008 2:04 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

If anyone took part in that thread, it would fall under trolling in my mind.

There’s nothing to be gained by commenting on that particular post.

And if no one was there feel free to ignore me.

by BrianL on Oct 2, 2008 2:07 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

There were a few there

they seemed to mostly try to explain that John was trying to disrespect the Giants. The ones I saw said they expect the Giants to win.

I have no problem with people going over there, it’s too bad that their site isn’t a little more open to discussion about this stuff though.

by Nate Dogg on Oct 2, 2008 2:40 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That's a no win discussion for anyone who goes over there.

A front-page post like that doesn’t invite open discussion. Anyone who tries to go over there and explain things is just going to cause problems.

There are times in when it’s okay to attempt open discussion, and there are times when it isn’t okay. The wording of that post made it clear that the people on that blog weren’t interested in any sort of rational discourse.

by BrianL on Oct 2, 2008 2:44 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Damn, Double Bastard is tasty.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Patspulpit_small
Q&A with Pats Pulpit
621hawks_calendar_37632_duckett_small
Spencer, Wahle likely headed to IR
Small
The recipe: how should the Hawks draft?
Picture_1_small
Scruffy's Video now live - Need feedback