Can somebody explain the interest in Fleener to me?

[Crimsoncrew]

Actually, whether or not this season confirms Toby's reasoning, his reasoning is spot-on and yours is wrong - the exception does not negate the rule and you have provided zero evidence that this season is an exception.

Also, where are you getting the notion that the Giants o'line became worse as the season progressed? How are you measuring that? I thought the Giants last 6 games of the regular season, which were against tougher opponents, were better than their first six games. Are you just making shit up again or do you have any relevant facts to back-up your claim that they became worse as the season progressed?

As for the playoffs, for 3 of the 4 playoff games the Giants o'line performed just fine. While the debacle against us does lower their aggregate statistical performance, it does not diminish the individual on field performance of the other 3 games; which, as I said, was just fine.

And finally, as if I scripted this myself, I mentioned to you in my other post why I dismiss your statistical arguments out of hand and this post is just another on a long list of reasons why. Good Job!

And yet you continue to fail, as Bemular or as MW49ers5, to make any statistical argument whatsoever. In fact, at no time in recent memory have you actually presented anything other than your opinion to support one of your claims. Kudos to you.

And Toby's reasoning was objectively seriously flawed. If you actually disagree, you really don't have a clue.

 

[TobyTyler]

sports cliche and theories are nice and all, but they aren't an absolute infallible rule. If they where always right Trent dilfer would have never won a superbowl

This makes no sense and has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

 

[TobyTyler]

That's just awful reasoning. You could use the same logic to claim that any SB winner was sound at virtually any position.

"Defense wins championships." Every SB winner must have had a good defense.

"It's a QB-driven league." Every SB winner must have had a good QB.

If we combine the two above, every SB winner must have a good secondary and/or a good pass rush.

"It's a passing league." Every SB winner was good at WR.

The Giants' OL was bad last season, and they got worse as the season progressed. To borrow Southern's stats, they allowed the most sacks and the most QB hits (by far) in the playoffs.

NFL Stats: by Team Category

Granted they played more games, but even if we adjust for attempts they allowed more sacks and hits than our OL did despite games against Atlanta and GB (Eli sacked or hit on 32.5% of dropbacks, Alex sacked or hit on 31.5% of dropbacks). And they were much less successful running the ball. If our OL was bad, theirs was as bad or worse.

The reason cliches develop in the first place is because they are generally founded in truth. You cannot have a bad offensive line and win the Super Bowl, you simply cannot do it. Every facet of the offense is based on the performance of the O Line. You can play devil's advocate all you want but you'll get nowhere with me on this one.

 

[clyde_carbon]

The reason cliches develop in the first place is because they are generally founded in truth. You cannot have a bad offensive line and win the Super Bowl, you simply cannot do it. Every facet of the offense is based on the performance of the O Line. You can play devil's advocate all you want but you'll get nowhere with me on this one.

I gave you two different websites that ranked the Giants' OL as one of the worst in the league.

Why should we believe you over them?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

The reason cliches develop in the first place is because they are generally founded in truth. You cannot have a bad offensive line and win the Super Bowl, you simply cannot do it. Every facet of the offense is based on the performance of the O Line. You can play devil's advocate all you want but you'll get nowhere with me on this one.

You could say the same thing about QBs, yet bad QBs have won the super bowl.

 

[Bemular]

I gave you two different websites that ranked the Giants' OL as one of the worst in the league.

Why should we believe you over them?

Clyde, the only website I've seen rate the Giants as one of the worst is PFF - What other website has them rated as one of the worst?

 

[clyde_carbon]

Clyde, the only website I've seen rate the Giants as one of the worst is PFF - What other website has them rated as one of the worst?

Football Outsiders. I gave you the link in this thread.

 

[Flyingiguana]

giants pass protection was ranked 6th by FO. ours 25th.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Jesus.

FO ranked the Giants offensive line 28th overall, and said the groups "was kind of a mess last season for long stretches."

It is pretty hard to disagree with that.

Outsiders tracked blown blocks this season and determined that David Diehl led the Giants with 17 of them, followed by Kareem McKenzie. That won't surprise Giants fans at all, though we have to cut Diehl a little slack for having played two positions and dealt with a broken hand. Diehl (-58.1) and McKenzie (-33.2) ranked worst among Giants' offensive line in scores compiled by Pro Football Focus. In fact, no Giants lineman received a plus score from PFF for the 2011 season.

 

[Bemular]

Football Outsiders. I gave you the link in this thread.

Yes, you did but at the link the Giants were ranked not 28th overall, but 28th in rushing and 6th in passing. I think this blogger, Ed Valentine mistook the rushing rank as the overall rank. In fact when you look at all the statistics at that site, one could almost make the case that the Giants o'line was better than ours.

 

[Flyingiguana]

i'm looking at adjusted sacks. the other area of concern for me with the line is the interior line (a big reason why the line is poor at pass blocking). we were ranked 29th in the run game up the gut.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Yes, you did but at the link the Giants were ranked not 28th overall, but 28th in rushing and 6th in passing. I think this blogger, Ed Valentine mistook the rushing rank as the overall rank. In fact when you look at all the statistics at that site, one could almost make the case that the Giants o'line was better than ours.

The 6th ranking you're looking at is based on sacks taken. How many times have you seen Eli, in the games just against us, escape the rush, avoid the sack, and make something happen? Like I said, a QB has as much to do with the sacks as the OL.

 

[deep9er]

what happened to the subject of this thread....Fleener?

never mind..............

 

[clyde_carbon]

i'm looking at adjusted sacks. the other area of concern for me with the line is the interior line (a big reason why the line is poor at pass blocking). we were ranked 29th in the run game up the gut.

We argued about this in this very thread. A QB as much to do with the adjusted sacks as the OL. Look at the correlation between sacks and adjusted sacks.

 

[Bemular]

The 6th ranking you're looking at is based on sacks taken. How many times have you seen Eli, in the games just against us, escape the rush, avoid the sack, and make something happen? Like I said, a QB has as much to do with the sacks as the OL.

Quit pretending you know something about NFL protections and how they are determined or calculated - trust me you haven't a clue.

The 6th ranking is the ranking - period! Or perhaps we should use the same BS about the differences in our running backs, hell the Giants o'line just got a whole lot better! So, stop trying to straw man this discussion to death. You are Crimson are 100% wrong! Get over it!

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

And yet you continue to fail, as Bemular or as MW49ers5, to make any statistical argument whatsoever. In fact, at no time in recent memory have you actually presented anything other than your opinion to support one of your claims. Kudos to you.

And Toby's reasoning was objectively seriously flawed. If you actually disagree, you really don't have a clue.

Why do you keep calling him MW?

 

[Flyingiguana]

We argued about this in this very thread. A QB as much to do with the adjusted sacks as the OL. Look at the correlation between sacks and adjusted sacks.

by their definition they adjust the sacks for down and distance. we had a ton of 3rd and longs this year putting added pressure on an already poor offensive line. not to mention we had no move the chains type recievers.

our interior line was horrible as well. pockets regularly got blown up. say what u want about smith, but there's a number of reasons why we were in the bottom percentile in the league.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Why do you keep calling him MW?

Because Bemular and MW are the same person.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Quit pretending you know something about NFL protections and how they are determined or calculated - trust me you haven't a clue.

The 6th ranking is the ranking - period! Or perhaps we should use the same BS about the differences in our running backs, hell the Giants o'line just got a whole lot better! So, stop trying to straw man this discussion to death. You are Crimson are 100% wrong! Get over it!

Textbook Bemular argument here. "I'm right because I say so." Compelling.

 

[Bemular]

Textbook Bemular argument here. "I'm right because I say so." Compelling.

Well, let's see, you have yet to prove one thing I have said to be wrong so I guess you finally got something right - Congratulations! You are now 1 for, oh, I don't know, how many posts do you have?

Here is yet another claim that you are completely wrong about - MW and me, yeah, not the same poster, not even close actually.