OT: OT: 2018 Football Thread III: Well, the Giants suck, anyway!

[YoSoyLalo]

Any chance ya’ll would trade Collins?

 

[I Eat Crow]

Any chance ya’ll would trade Collins?

Not for all of King Midas' silver.

I wouldn't be so sure about Manning not being back next year. There isn't a single NFL ready QB prospect in this upcoming draft. A vet is going to be needed until they develop.

Thinking along the line of Bridgewater, Winston, etc. if they do move on from Manning.

 

[broadwayblue]

Not for all of King Midas' silver.

I wouldn't be so sure about Manning not being back next year. There isn't a single NFL ready QB prospect in this upcoming draft. A vet is going to be needed until they develop.

Thinking along the line of Bridgewater, Winston, etc. if they do move on from Manning.

I really can't imagine any scenario in which Manning is back next year. He shouldn't have been back this year...and while the O line certainly shares some of the blame, it's hard not to look at Eli as a big part of the problem. The fan base would riot if Eli is back and starting next season.

 

[RGY]

Derrick Carr is another possibity.

 

[broadwayblue]

Derrick Carr is another possibity.

Yeah, I mentioned him a few posts above. With the Raiders in fire sale mode as well he could definitely be on the move.

 

[RGY]

Yeah, I mentioned him a few posts above. With the Raiders in fire sale mode as well he could definitely be on the move.

Could buy low on him. I think he still has a lot left to offer. He is a good alternative to Eli as a stopgap while we develop the next QB

 

[broadwayblue]

Could buy low on him. I think he still has a lot left to offer. He is a good alternative to Eli as a stopgap while we develop the next QB

I do believe his new 5 year deal just started at ~25M/year.

 

[broadwayblue]

dupe

 

[Bob Richards]

Gruden is definitely cutting Derek Carr.

 

[TheTakedown]

Obviously Eli will not be back next year. If you are the Giants what do you do regarding his replacement? Assuming Herbert is not coming out, do you draft Lock or Finley (or someone else) or sign a vet for a short term deal (Bridgewater) or try to trade for someone (Carr)?

I'd say go big in the draft on a QB AND sign a veteran... Bridgewater would be a perfect stopgap player

 

[Machinehead]

That's an awful trade.

Giants gonna Giants.

 

[YoSoyLalo]

As someone who has seen Carr quite a bit, I definitely don’t think he’d be a good fit in NY.

Not to mention, he just isn’t that good IMO.

 

[klingsor]

Giants need cap room so they can refortify the OL with signings like Solder and Omenah.

Gotta give credit to Hunter Gathers (among others) who called these signings ridiculous from day one.

 

[silverfish]

Why are we trading for a QB? Just start Lauletta, see what he's got, and draft Tyree. It's real simple.

 

[Bob Richards]

As someone who has seen Carr quite a bit, I definitely don’t think he’d be a good fit in NY.

Not to mention, he just isn’t that good IMO.

I'm not sure what it is this season, but Derek Carr's 2017 passer rating under pressure dropped 60 points. It was literally lower than if you just spiked the ball on every single play.

 

[silverfish]

Madden 19 scenario:

1. Trade Eli to Jacksonville
2. Trade for Tyrod
3. Re-sign Tyrod for one more year
4. Tyrod works with Lauletta, or whoever we draft Tyree, next season to pass the ball off in 2020.

Tyrod still has game. Is mobile enough to extend plays with this o-line. That, some other smart plays in the off-season, maybe we compete in 2019.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

"The Pats convert at 80% and we convert at 20% so let's use 50% because that's the average." You have to, at some level, take into account that the Giants are well below league average offensively. Using league average in that context is disingenuous. I didn't cherry pick anything, I used the last full season of data. You also don't need stats specific to 2 point conversions since you have all sorts of stats on things like 4th and short, which the Giants have also been poor at.

You used the last full season when we didn't have our best weapon in the redzone and had the second best record in the redzone miss the 3/4 of the season. We also had a different coaching staff. Someone did the math for Giants stats and they were 1 for 5 last year, 3 for 5 this year. Same exact sample size. The number of attempts is what matters not games played. You could have used the one from this year that had the same amount of 2 point conversion attempts AND has a roster that's much more relevant but you didn't because you want to win this argument.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Also, 5 extra point attempts, whether last year or this year is an infinitesimally small sample size. The number I used despite being not ideal has a sample size of 1,045. That's statistically much more significant than 5. Using that 20% in your analysis would get you laughed at if you were doing any sort of real work. Hell, I felt uncomfortable using only 24 overtimes in my estimate for the probability of winning in OT. If I had a choice I would have used more. But 15 minute OT and 10 minute OT are significantly different.

 

[sbjnyc]

You used the last full season when we didn't have our best weapon in the redzone and had the second best record in the redzone miss the 3/4 of the season. We also had a different coaching staff. Someone did the math for Giants stats and they were 1 for 5 last year, 3 for 5 this year. Same exact sample size. The number of attempts is what matters not games played. You could have used the one from this year that had the same amount of 2 point conversion attempts AND has a roster that's much more relevant but you didn't because you want to win this argument.

If you think the Giants had a 60% chance of converting a 2 point conversion then you haven't been watching the Giants. The bottom line is that the league average does not apply to individual teams. This is one of the larger fallacies that you see when coaches try to use analytics. And that is the issue I have with everyone justifying what Shurmur did. It doesn't make the decision wrong, just that using league averages is the wrong method.

 

[YoSoyLalo]

I'm not sure what it is this season, but Derek Carr's 2017 passer rating under pressure dropped 60 points. It was literally lower than if you just spiked the ball on every single play.

There’s really no other way to say it: he plays like a little bitch. Guy looks perpetually terrified on every play. Both afraid of pressure and afraid of throwing into tight windows.

I think the Raiders utterly and completely ruined him, just like the Texans did to his brother.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

If you think the Giants had a 60% chance of converting a 2 point conversion then you haven't been watching the Giants. The bottom line is that the league average does not apply to individual teams. This is one of the larger fallacies that you see when coaches try to use analytics. And that is the issue I have with everyone justifying what Shurmur did. It doesn't make the decision wrong, just that using league averages is the wrong method.

You moved the goalposts. First, it was 20%, then when I destroyed your argument you said the Giants don't have a 60% chance of converting a 2 point conversion. You said it's not 60%, despite there being 5 2 point conversions this season that brought the number to 60%. When it was 5 2 point conversions last season, you responded with glee that it was 20%. Why? It suits your argument. No, it likely wouldn't be 60% over a large enough sample size. But it doesn't have to be. It just has to be 32.6%. And yes league averages aren't a perfect metric. But neither is a grand total of 5 PATs a year ago. Give me the 1,000+ points of data over these joke sample sizes any day of the week. And especially over your "well the Giants look bad" bit of analysis. BTW, the Giants have sucked this year, but this was not a 3rd and 8 where they're brutal. The Giants have been very good in short yardage this season (3rd and 4th and short). So even going by your form of analysis you're wrong.

 

[sbjnyc]

You moved the goalposts. First, it was 20%, then when I destroyed your argument you said the Giants don't have a 60% chance of converting a 2 point conversion. You said it's not 60%, despite there being 5 2 point conversions this season that brought the number to 60%. When it was 5 2 point conversions last season, you responded with glee that it was 20%. Why? It suits your argument. No, it likely wouldn't be 60% over a large enough sample size. But it doesn't have to be. It just has to be 32.6%. And yes league averages aren't a perfect metric. But neither is a grand total of 5 PATs a year ago. Give me the 1,000+ points of data over these joke sample sizes any day of the week. And especially over your "well the Giants look bad" bit of analysis. BTW, the Giants have sucked this year, but this was not a 3rd and 8 where they're brutal. The Giants have been very good in short yardage this season (3rd and 4th and short). So even going by your form of analysis you're wrong.

Yeah sorry that didn't come out right. . My argument really isn't about the specific number this season or last just that I think that the small sample bias really overwhelms the historical averages here.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Yeah sorry that didn't come out right. . My argument really isn't about the specific number this season or last just that I think that the small sample bias really overwhelms the historical averages here.

1) You ignored the small sample this year because it didn't match your opinions on the Giants offense. That's despite it being the same size as last year's sample while being more relevant since it's a completely different team with a different coach this year.

2) You do realize that even if you go with last year's sample because it's so small you are 1 play away from it going from 20% to 40%? I don't remember last year's 2 point conversions but these plays are a matter of inches. 1 bounce the Giants way in the 4 failed attempts could have made your entire argument null and void since that would meet the 32.6% threshold. The fact that an inch on one of 4 failed conversions could have completely nullified your argument has to make you rethink about using this sample size.

3) While the league historical average may, in fact, be not in line with the Giants' abilities there is no evidence for it. The Giants have been good in 3rd and 4th and short situations all season. While they haven't been good in the redzone the number is still well north of 40% (once again above the threshold). Plus, as already mentioned you could be 15 percentage points below league average and still make the right decision. And while it's not a perfect stat, it's a legit stat, not one that would change by 20% if one event was changed.

Not to be condescending but have you ever taken a statistics class?

 

[sbjnyc]

Not to be condescending but have you ever taken a statistics class?

You're right, I never took a statistics class. My degree is in mathematics and I'm an actuary but clearly my attempt to apply credibility theory here isn't up to your standards.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You're right, I never took a statistics class. My degree is in mathematics and I'm an actuary but clearly my attempt to apply credibility theory here isn't up to your standards.

Well something tells me your insurance company doesn't allow you to make life expectancy forecasts based on 5 data points.