Giants Super Bowl formula?

[detlef]

First, there is a "?" at the end of the title of this thread. Merely an observation. But it's also being done intentionally, as no other team has invested in the front line as much as the Giants have. And it's working.

And so is what other teams are doing. That's my point. Great, so they just won their 2nd SB over a short stretch. But, in the past, when other teams have won a few SBs over a short stretch, they also dominated the league during that time. Those were the teams that were onto something.

 

And, while I'm not intending to take anything away from what they accomplished, because they beat two #1 seeds and a #2 seed. They won, flat out. But, they also eked into the play-offs and that sort of takes away from the bit about it being some great system or formula. That we wouldn't be having this discussion about whether or not NY has unlocked the secret if Philly doesn't lay an egg so many times this year. We're talking about whether TC will be back next year and why they can't get Eli some help.

 

If Philly wins one more game that they should have, we're talking about SF's got it figured out because you just need to be able to pound the rock and have great LBs. Or NO's got it figured out because you don't need a prototypical QB stature wise so long as he and the coach are geniuses. Or that, as long as your offense is so potent, and your D is opportunistic, they can give up as many points as GB or NE do.

 

In other words, you're overreacting. What the Giants are doing has obviously worked to the tune of delivering two SBs in the last several years. Giants fans should be proud and happy. Even the ones who've been grumbling since the last one and up until a few weeks ago while they were struggling.

[CaptainHook]

And so is what other teams are doing. That's my point. Great, so they just won their 2nd SB over a short stretch. But, in the past, when other teams have won a few SBs over a short stretch, they also dominated the league during that time. Those were the teams that were onto something.

 

And, while I'm not intending to take anything away from what they accomplished, because they beat two #1 seeds and a #2 seed. They won, flat out. But, they also eked into the play-offs and that sort of takes away from the bit about it being some great system or formula. That we wouldn't be having this discussion about whether or not NY has unlocked the secret if Philly doesn't lay an egg so many times this year. We're talking about whether TC will be back next year and why they can't get Eli some help.

You don't think the injuries the Giants had this season had anything to do with their record this year? And yet they were still able to overcome it?

If Philly wins one more game that they should have, we're talking about SF's got it figured out because you just need to be able to pound the rock and have great LBs. Or NO's got it figured out because you don't need a prototypical QB stature wise so long as he and the coach are geniuses. Or that, as long as your offense is so potent, and your D is opportunistic, they can give up as many points as GB or NE do.

But none of those things happened! And the NFL is a copy-cat league. After Tampa Bay won ONE SB, everyone was running the Tampa 2 defense. . .

[detlef]

You don't think the injuries the Giants had this season had anything to do with their record this year? And yet they were still able to overcome it?

 

But none of those things happened! And the NFL is a copy-cat league. After Tampa Bay won ONE SB, everyone was running the Tampa 2 defense. . .

They were also able to overcome it because they only needed to win 9 games to win their division.

 

But "those things" did happen last year and the year before. Those years, NO and GB made their cases for why they had it all figured out. Something that they've both done a fine job of backing up, even if it didn't result in another trophy, yet.

 

People were running the Tampa 2 because Tampa's D was the only reason they were any good for a pretty long stretch of time.

 

Regardless, I think there've always been a pretty high % of DL taken early in drafts as long as I can remember. Teams are likely smart enough to realize that they can't turn guys into being better DL prospects simply by taking them early. The ones that are worth an early pick get taken early. Those that aren't don't.

 

Further, you brushed off my point that the DL was less of a story last night than the WRs were by pointing out that Cruz was a FA. OK? What about the two guys who came up big in the 2nd half? A 1st and 3rd rounder.

Edited February 6, 2012 by detlef

[CaptainHook]

Further, you brushed off my point that the DL was less of a story last night than the WRs were by pointing out that Cruz was a FA. OK? What about the two guys who came up big in the 2nd half? A 1st and 3rd rounder.

I disagree that the DL was less of a story. They forced a safety, had two sacks, several hits or hurries, batted down passes, and held NE RB's to 62 yards on 17 carries. They also were the reason NE had no long completions, and forced an interception. Not sure which game you watched. . .

[Ice1]

Who else has done this to the extreme the Giants have? That is my question. There may be some teams, but none that I can think of.

 

In the same time frame, the Packers have drafted 5 defensive linemen. (and Clay Matthews, so 6)

Steelers have drafted 2. Although with the 3-4, they have also drafted 3 OLBs.

Patriots have drafted 4.

Colts have drafted 4.

Ravens have drafted 4.

Saints 4.

 

Trying to go through the teams that are considered better "drafters" and SB participants. . . Giants have drafted 9.

 

Let me put this way just looking at one team, The Texans.

 

Since 2004 they have selected a DE/DT in the first round in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2011. They have also used a 2nd rounder in 2010 on the position. They also took rush LB Reed in the 2nd in 2011. In 2010 they also took a DT in round 3.

 

By contrast, The Giants spent 3 first rounders since 2003 and 3 seconds.

 

I discounted the Texans in 2003 since they were still in throws of expansion and had to go BPA due to massive needs everywhere. But since 2004; 5 1st and 2 seconds is even more emphasis than the Giants.

 

Just saying volume isn't everything, draft position matters big time but in the Texans case they have spent more 1st rounders at the position by 3 than the Giants dating back to 2004.

 

In 2003 they selected Andre Johnson and certainly should have given he was and is a major beast.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Ice1

[CaptainHook]

But "those things" did happen last year and the year before. Those years, NO and GB made their cases for why they had it all figured out. Something that they've both done a fine job of backing up, even if it didn't result in another trophy, yet.

Like you said, they've only won a single SB at the moment. They also have better QB's (I think most would agree) than Eli Manning. Yet the Giants have two rings.

[CaptainHook]

Let me put this way just looking at one team, The Texans.

 

Since 2004 they have selected a DE/DT in the first round in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2011. They have also used a 2nd rounder in 2010 on the position. They also took rush LB Reed in the 2nd in 2011. In 2010 they also took a DT in round 3.

 

By contrast, The Giants spent 3 first rounders since 2003 and 3 seconds.

 

I discounted the Texans in 2003 since they were still in throws of expansion and had to go BPA due to massive needs everywhere. But since 2004; 5 1st and 2 seconds is even more emphasis than the Giants.

 

Just saying volume isn't everything, draft position matters big time but in the Texans case they have spent more 1st rounders at the position by 3 than the Giants dating back to 2004.

 

In 2003 they selected Andre Johnson and certainly should have given he was and is a major beast.

Is it surprising then that the Texans won the division and a playoff game? Another major reason the Texans have spent so many picks on defensive linemen is the fact they switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 to a 4-3 and back to a 3-4. But the Giants have still taken more than even them!

[detlef]

I disagree that the DL was less of a story. They forced a safety, had two sacks, several hits or hurries, batted down passes, and held NE RB's to 62 yards on 17 carries. They also were the reason NE had no long completions, and forced an interception. Not sure which game you watched. . .

I watched the game where, much of the time, Brady actually had a pretty decent amount of time and still couldn't find guys open. That is, when he wasn't going 22-25 or whatever it was to close out the 1st half and open up the 2nd. A game where Manning had WRs making plays for him and Brady didn't as much.

 

Whatever. I'm not doing a very good job of not getting sucked into yet another pissing match, so I'm going to move on. I don't think you're right, but so be it.

[Ice1]

I agree that the offense should be able to get the time back, but I don't see how or why anyone would ever do this on purpose. All you're doing is giving the offense a free play. After all, you can be sure that NE would have declined the penalty, clock be damned, had that play resulted in a long gain. In short, the D gains nothing by intentionally comitting a penalty there.

 

Actually they had more defenders to stop and the Pats wiped out around 10 seconds for only 5 yards. Just noting whether on purpose or not it did help to a degree given the time burned. Just seems like a needless advantage that some coaches will look at going forward.

 

Probably just a mistake, but it in this case it was beneficial. I imagine it will be at least looked at by the rules committee but doubt anything will come of it. Just found it interesting strategy, intended or not, and not unlike the Pats giving a free TD just to save time. I wouldn't put it past the Giants coach, they are very good in situation management.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Ice1

[CaptainHook]

Actually they had more defenders to stop and the Giants wiped out around 10 seconds for only 5 yards. Just noting whether on purpose or not it did help to a degree given the time burned. Just seems like a needless advantage that some coaches will look at going forward.

 

Probably just a mistake, but it in this case it was beneficial. I imagine it will be at least looked at by the rules committee but doubt anything will come of it. Just found it interesting strategy, intended or not, and not unlike the Pats giving a free TD just to save time. I wouldn't put it past the Giants coach, they are very good in situation management.

I agree. And when it happened, I said I thought they should do it again. Hell, put 13 out there. More time off the clock, and only a 5 yard penalty.

[detlef]

Actually they had more defenders to stop and the Giants wiped out around 10 seconds for only 5 yards. Just noting whether on purpose or not it did help to a degree given the time burned. Just seems like a needless advantage that some coaches will look at going forward.

 

Probably just a mistake, but it in this case it was beneficial. I imagine it will be at least looked at by the rules committee but doubt anything will come of it. Just found it interesting strategy, intended or not, and not unlike the Pats giving a free TD just to save time. I wouldn't put it past the Giants coach, they are very good in situation management.

 

 

I agree. And when it happened, I said I thought they should do it again. Hell, put 13 out there. More time off the clock, and only a 5 yard penalty.

I see what you guys are saying now.

[Furd]

Well, their "formula" didn't work all that well for the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons.

[Ice1]

Is it surprising then that the Texans won the division and a playoff game? Another major reason the Texans have spent so many picks on defensive linemen is the fact they switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 to a 4-3 and back to a 3-4. But the Giants have still taken more than even them!

 

Just to clarify, this was the first year they went to a 3-4. Most teams today including the Giants run hybrid defenses on the front based on situation. One reason Kiwi is considered a LB these days in most IDP leagues.

 

I certainly do not disagree with the strategy but it is not just something the Giants do given the rules today which place emphasis on the pass.

 

For the record, I think the Giants have the best front 4 with depth in the league followed by the Texans as they hit the lottery in 2011 with their first 2 round selections as did the Giants getting Tuck in the 3rd in 05.

 

It is not so much where these types are selected but the quality of the player. This past year the Giants took a DB in the first.

 

All I am saying is teams expend great capital at the position as a rule and this not exclusive to the Giants but a common draft strategy.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Ice1

[CaptainHook]

For some reason, I thought the Texans ran a 3-4 a few years back? Am I imagining that? Then they switched back to a 4-3 before going 3-4 again this year.

 

I don't think it's a "common draft strategy" if only one or two teams are doing it.

[CaptainHook]

Well, their "formula" didn't work all that well for the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons.

Hard to argue with that. Although they did make the playoffs in 2008.

[Ice1]

For some reason, I thought the Texans ran a 3-4 a few years back? Am I imagining that? Then they switched back to a 4-3 before going 3-4 again this year.

 

I don't think it's a "common draft strategy" if only one or two teams are doing it.

 

I am not sure the Texans ever even qualified as a defense until the took Mario Williams at 1.1 in 06. The did give a ton of picks for Babin in 04 but he never panned out. He was a classic late bloomer and had a great season this past year with his 4th team I think.

 

Kansas City drafted 10 DE/DT in the first 3 rounds since 2002 and that doesn't even count Jared Allen who was a 4th rounder.

 

It is way more common than you think. It just seems to you the Giants are focused there way more than others. One of the main reasons are DE's are like WR's to a degree, the development time can be long.

 

The Giants have done a great job with the ones they have drafted overall but like a lot of teams they realize the bust factor can be high at the position.

 

To put in perspective, there were 12 players that went in round one last year that played DE/DT in college. There were another 6 taken in round two and 7 more in round 3. I would say 25 picks in 3 rounds shows just how important teams view the defensive front in the NFL.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Ice1

[CaptainHook]

I only count 8 since 2003. Still less than the Giants in that time frame. And once again, you said it was common. You've yet to find one team that has done it to the degree the Giants have.

[Ice1]

I only count 8 since 2003. Still less than the Giants in that time frame. And once again, you said it was common. You've yet to find one team that has done it to the degree the Giants have.

 

Volume is not a badge of honor. I was just showing what a difference one year can make going back a decade. I mentioned the year of 2002 with the Chiefs. Plus or minus a year or two or a player or two does not make it a formula only a few teams use.

 

I simply subtracted a year on the Texans due to expansion needs of a new team and added a year to the Chiefs to show these 3 franchises are basically equal although the Texans have actually expended more capital on 1st rounders.

 

I don't feel like looking at all teams compared to the Giants over 3 rounds so if volume differential of a couple of players using only the draft in your mind makes this some formula then you win.

 

I simply know the majority of teams draft and acquire these players in FA big time to try to compete annually so I don't see this is as a formula only the Giants are doing. One has to look no further than the contracts of these positions to see how high the demand really is. The ability to get to the QB is a very high priority for every team.

 

Today, the Giants are better than most as evidenced by their sack totals. Then again the Buc's have spent have spent 2 firsts , 2 seconds, and 1 third just in the last 3 years and ranked last in sacks. I would say 5 players in 3 years qualifies as evidence to the degree teams are going to at the position.

Even the high powered Saints expended 5 first round picks on the defensive front over the last decade. It is not volume but selecting a D-Line 5 times in the last 10 years in the first round is impressive.

 

The one thing I am sure we will agree on is the play of the defensive front is a key ingredient to success and far more important than the sheer volume of draft picks at the position.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Ice1

[matt770]

Already hearing the grumbling that it's going to be impossible to keep this team together. Pierre-Paul and Manningham will want to get paid, so Osi is most likely gone, possibly Manningham also. You've got to believe one of the idiot owners like Snyder will offer him some ridiculous number.

[CaptainHook]

I think "volume" is a big part of it! You continue to draft defensive linemen no matter what. That way you have them in case you draft a bust, or they get injured. Pulling re-treads off the free agent pile is hardly a way to be successful.

[Balzac]

The idea that they've got some sort of "formula" going here is a little nutty. They were less than special in the three years between SBs and, to be frank, won both of their SBs on last minute drives in games that could just as easily have gone the other way - there's no formula for that. Gotta give them huge props for winning 2 SBs but this has been a far from dominant team . . .

[isleseeya]

I thought the formula was "hope Welker doesn;t catch the ball when it counts" That cost the Patriots.

 

definitely hurt Pats alot ... but Giants dont win if eli and manningham hook up they way they did ...