New York Giants Strategic Tendencies: Offense

by John Morgan on Sep 30, 2008 1:39 PM PDT

I'm introducing some new features next week (they're good), but don't have the ammunition needed to do them right this week. So, this all important matchup coincides with a bit of transition week for Field Gulls. Nevertheless, there're some old standards still worthy wheeling out. Let's start with a look at the Giants strategic tendencies on offense.

Offense

The Giants run a lot of three receiver sets. Consider, in 2007, Seattle ran many more 3+ WR sets (63%) than New York (49%), but Seattle also ran many more 4+ WR sets (17%) than New York (3%). Take the difference and you have two teams that employ 3 wide receivers on 46% of all plays. We can also deduce that (removing the small number of plays New York goes one wide or wide-less) New York employs 2 or 3 wide receivers on over 90% of all plays. Good news for a Seattle team three deep at competent corner.

The Giants run a traditional, run-heavy offense. In 2007, they ran on 43% of all plays, 10^th in the NFL. That included some opponent blowouts, though, and given the chance, Tom Coughlin will run, run, run, run, run with a back or two. Or three. In contests they were down by fewer than ten points entering the half, or ahead, the Giants ran on 51.5% of all plays for the game. They were also 10-1. Still, the run wasn't simply a function of salting away a victory. Against the Bills, the Giants were ahead only 3 at the half and behind by 4 entering the fourth quarter, but ran the ball 47 times to only 16 pass attempts, scored 21 in the fourth and won by 17. Against the Bears, the Giants were down 6 at the half and 9 entering the fourth quarter, but ran the ball 37 times to only 28 pass attempts, scored 14 in the fourth and won by 5. Against the Jets, the Giants were down 10 at the half and 3 entering the fourth, but ran the ball 39 times to only 25 passes, scored 28 in the second half and 14 in the fourth and won by 11. In other words, short of a Seattle blowout, Coughlin won't abandon the run, no he'll run, run, run...

Just to round this out, and kudos Pro Football Prospectus for all the great info, the Giants are a play action team, running play action on 23% of all pass plays in 2007, fifth in the NFL. They're also old school when it comes to short yardage, running on short yardage 78% of the time, first in the NFL. And if Mike Martz likes to get the ball around, Kevin Gilbride keeps it in the family. In 2007, Plaxico Burress, Amani Toomer and Jeremy Shockey (who missed two games) accounted for 59% of all targets. Losing Shockey has just moved the targets to Steve Smith. In 2008, Burress, Toomer and Smith account for 60% of all targets.

It's an old school, smash mouth offense. Perhaps outdated, perhaps built for postseason success, but, whichever, as brutal and efficient as Fielding Yost's point-a-minute Wolverines when it's on.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Buzzing up syndicates this content through Yahoo.

In case anyone was wondering.

by John Morgan on Sep 30, 2008 1:41 PM PDT reply actions

Speaking of offense and such...

Yvenson Bernard is off the practice squad and Matt Lawrence is in.

by BrianL on Sep 30, 2008 1:47 PM PDT reply actions

Too bad for Bernard.

If only we could have gotten him 500 carries ago.

by John Morgan on Sep 30, 2008 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions

True, but I'm very intrigued by Lawrence.

Screw you, Mariners. I'm back in football's loving arms.

by kevin_ess on Sep 30, 2008 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions

There's something to be said for the theory that running backs are fungible.

I’m always for signing a back off the scrap heap.

by John Morgan on Sep 30, 2008 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions

Nothing wrong with cheap, available talent.

by BrianL on Sep 30, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions

It's a no loss scenario.

Good, competitive talent to compete with starters in practice, and if he happens to break out, we’re lucky.

Screw you, Mariners. I'm back in football's loving arms.

by kevin_ess on Sep 30, 2008 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions

Could be the next Ryan Grant.

by C_HAWK1 on Sep 30, 2008 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions

since you mention we have three competant corners...

…I assume that you think we’ll generally be going to a nickel when they go 3 WR?

That’s a good plan if you’re the Giants, keeps one of our excellent LB’s off the field (assuming JP doesn’t line up as a DE).

by djafrot on Sep 30, 2008 4:02 PM PDT reply actions

I don't follow.

Seattle will use nickel packages in appropriate situations and therefore it’s good to have three competent corners. I’m not sure how you can twist that into a negative.

by John Morgan on Sep 30, 2008 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm not trying to "twist" anything

I’m not saying that having three competant corners is bad. I was noting that because we had them, we might be more willing to use a nickel package.

BUT I was noting that, when we do so, we take one of our really, really good linebackers off the field (unless JP goes to DE). Which is bad, period.

It wasn’t a big statement, it was just something that came to mind when you pointed out that the Giants like to use 3 WR’s a lot.

by djafrot on Sep 30, 2008 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Why assume JP doesn't line up at DE?

That seems to be our favorite nickle defense and for good reason. Leroy Hill is also capable of lining up at DE and Tatupu is very good in coverage. It’s a lot better than leaving in 4 DL and taking out a linebacker…which we don’t seem to do that often.

by cashless on Sep 30, 2008 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Rushing defense

We are 4th in the league in rushing yardage allowed so far, allowing 88 yards per game and 3.5 yards-per-carry to our opponents (including Lynch, Gore, and S.Jackson). The Giants are ranked 3rd. I think many would agree that New York’s offensive line will be the best test for us so far.

Obviously, there are many factors that go into this, but I like our chances at forcing the Giants to pass more than they would like. We can’t let them grind it out with the run and wear us down as the game goes on, along with the trends John pointed out in the open. I think if we can make them rely more on the pass, our rush will have a chance to rattle Eli and force some bad throws, esp. without his security blanket in Burress.

by Misfit74 on Sep 30, 2008 8:59 PM PDT reply actions

I think we have faced better(not bigger) backs.

But not an offensive line even close to as good. A couple years ago we made the Giants OL look pretty bad in Seattle, but in New York it won’t be like that.

by cashless on Sep 30, 2008 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions

What do you make of

the Giants periodic pass happyness? By and large they’re a running team, and like you showed they’ll pound the ball all game long. But a few times a year Coughlin lets Eli air it out. Last year against the Redskins, in New York in December, Eli went 18-52 and he threw 35 or more passes in 8 games. So far this year he’s done it twice, throwing 43 times in their squeeker with Cincinatti.

What can the Seahawks do to encourage the Giants to shift into their Martzian alter ego? Should they try?

by Nate Dogg on Sep 30, 2008 9:27 PM PDT reply actions

DL

I think that defensive line play is going be crucial in this game. We have invested a lot in this unit over the last couple years and its time to start harvesting the fruit. We haven’t played a power run team like this yet, particularly not one missing its #1 receiving weapon and therefore likely to run like hell.

Can LoJack live up to the hype that he will improve our off-tackle run D?

It seems like we have gone away from Red Bryant and moved to Craig Terrill and Green as our second string DT’s. I am afraid that Terrill/Green on 3rd and 3-5 will turn into succesful runs. I hope that we use Bryant/Green/Terrill intelligently AND that they play well so we can keep Mebane and Bernard fresh through 4 quarters.

We have spent more on DL than any other unit on this team. In the last three years we have invested a big FA contract (Kerney) , a first round pick (LoJack), two second round picks (Tapp, Mebane), A fourth rounder (Bryant). Bernard is the only starter we have had for awhile, and Terrill is the only depth guy who has been around. Given the level of investment it is time for this unit to dominate, even on the road. These guys don’t need to make the tackles every time but they need to make sure the Giant’s backs aren’t blowing into the second level untouched through big holes.

I like the comment about Seattle bring three deep at competent corner. I wasn’t so sure I liked the Wilson pick given when we were all set at starting CB, but I have begun to feel like the depth and nickel improvement were worth a second round pick. With the number of 3+ WR sets you see today it makes a lot of sense to upgrade over Babineaux at nickel.

Just like every week, the matchup is good. The hawks have a lot of talent on paper. Still, we need to execute which is something we have had far too much trouble doing on the road. This team, with a strong run game (thus far) is built better to play on the road than before. The NFC is clearly there for the taking right now and beating the #1 team, NYG, on the road, is the opportunity this team needs right now to gain some momentum. Lets hope we don’t squander it.

by michaelfox99 on Oct 1, 2008 7:44 AM PDT reply actions