ivanvamp

Let's compare their performance over the entire regular season versus their last five games. I'm wondering if their last five games represents their true level or if they're just playing way above their heads. (RS=regular season; LF=last five)

PPG
- RS: 24.6
- LF: 28.2

YPG
- RS: 385.0
- LF: 396.6

PPGA
- RS: 25.0
- LF: 13.4

YPGA
- RS: 376.4
- LF: 318.8

Turnovers
- RS: +7 (0.44/g)
- LF: +9 (1.80/g)

Scoring Margin
- RS: -0.4/g
- LF: +14.8/g

So here's how much better the Giants are playing over their last five than they did the entire regular season (which includes the first two games in their "last five" hot streak):

Each number is compared to their regular season number *per game*:
Scoring Margin: +15.2
Points Scored: +3.6
Points Allowed: +11.6 (they've given up 11.6 fewer points per game)
Yards gained: +11.6
Yards allowed: +57.6 (they've given up 57.6 fewer yards per game)
Yardage Margin: +69.2
Turnover Margin: +1.36


Now I ask you: is this team really that much better than their regular season team? Is there an example of a team playing so mediocre in the regular season and so dominant in the postseason? Even the 2007 Giants didn't have such a disparity. Here were their numbers in 2007 - same thing: regular season and then their last 5 prior to the Super Bowl:

PPG
- RS: 23.3
- LF: 28.2

YPG
- RS: 331.4
- LF: 316.6

PPGA
- RS: 21.9
- LF: 22.0

YPGA
- RS: 305.0
- LF: 301.0

Turnovers
- RS: +9 (0.56/g)
- LF: +4 (0.80/g)

Scoring Margin
- RS: +1.4/g
- LF: +6.2/g

So they improved during their last 5 games prior to the Super Bowl, and they played great against the Patriots, but even their game against the Patriots was way better than what they had done their previous five games, so that was the stunner of all stunners, really. CHFF says it was the biggest true upset in SB history, and they're probably right.

Here is their 2011 team compared with their 2007 team. 2011 team numbers are first, with 2007 team numbers following:

Scoring Margin: +15.2; +4.8
Points Scored: +3.6; +4.9
Points Allowed: +11.6; -0.1
Yards gained: +11.6; +14.8
Yards allowed: +57.6; +4.0
Yardage Margin: +69.2; +18.8
Turnover Margin: +1.36; +0.24

So the 2007 playoff team was essentially not a whole lot different from their regular season team. Improved, for sure, which is to be expected, since they were on a pretty nice run to end the year. But it wasn't an insane difference.

But this Giants team is playing SO far above their season numbers it really makes you wonder. Is this their true level?

If it is, what is the difference between them now and them during the regular season? I see two keys:

(1) Their defensive line is fully healthy. Umenyiora missed 7 games during the season, specifically their first 3 and then games 12-15. He returned for their 16th game and has been healthy and playing well since then (5.5 sacks over his last 5 games). Other guys were playing a bit banged up, but Umenyiora is the key. Here are the games played for their D-line:

Umenyiora: 9 (already went over his situation)
Tuck: 12 (missed games 1, 4, 5, 6)
Pierre-Paul: 16
Canty: 16
Joseph: 16
Bernard: 16
Tollefson: 16

Really, the only DL that they can say is now healthy and making a difference is Umenyiora, who, admittedly, has been tremendous since returning in week 17. Guy is a great, great player when healthy, which is now is. But it is a bit of a myth that the Giants were all beat up all year long. Other than Umenyiora, the other key defensive guys that have missed a lot of games are:

Blackburn: 5 games played (missed games 1-11)
Amukamara: 7 games played (missed games 1-9)

That's it. So really, is Umenyiora *that* much of a difference-maker? Remember, we're talking about a HUGE improvement by the Giants across the board in their last five games. Can Osi's presence be responsible for that?

(2) Turnovers. This, really, is the biggest thing. Look at their turnover margin. They are nearly +2 per game during their hot streak. Turnover differential is the single most important factor in winning games (which makes it so amazing that the Pats won despite being -2 in the turnover department last week). The Giants are making big plays...they did it to NE during the regular season too (where they were +2 that day too).

The problem is that the Pats - especially Brady - have been turnover prone during the playoffs in recent years (I've detailed this in other posts). So a team that's getting a lot of turnovers vs. a team that's been turning it over a lot in the postseason probably is not an ideal matchup for us.

But consider this: the Giants were +2 in turnovers vs. the Pats during the regular season and needed a last-second score to win. The Ravens were +2 in turnovers vs. the Pats in the playoffs and lost. The Broncos were +1 in turnovers vs. the Pats in the playoffs and lost by 35. The Giants were +2 in turnovers to SF and needed every one of them to win by 3 in overtime.

In other words, the Patriots have survived some games where they have been in the negative in terms of turnover margin. I think they can survive being -1 in the Super Bowl, but not -2 or more.

Here's my conclusion: the Giants are playing WAY over their heads lately. There is no way this team is as good as their recent streak indicates, or else they'd be an historically great team. They are good, but they're so far outperforming their regular season stats with really not a lot of changes to their team (basically Umenyiora) that it seems unlikely that they'll keep that up in the Super Bowl. The key is turnovers. If the Pats can stay even in the turnover battle, they stand a very good chance of winning.

Ron Sellers

I think it is a combination of both the Giants playing better than they had been, and their opponents playing worse. I give them credit for their improvement, but they have also been the beneficiary of some poor performances by their opposition.

For example: the Packers were simply off on an unusually large number of plays. Passes behind wide open receivers, a higher than usual number of drops; that's something you haven't seen from them all season. And while Green Bay's defense has been mediocre all year, there was no excuse for them to not be able to defend on that hail mary just before halftime.

In the 49ers game give the Giants credit for forcing one turnover, but the other was a completely unforced error; that was more on SF not executing than on NYG creating the turnover.


The Pats have been helped out by their opponents gaffes as well, but not to the extent that the Giants have. While I do expect the Patriots to turn the ball over once, I don't expect them to execute as poorly as the 49ers and Packers did; I think that is something that many 'experts' are overlooking in their analysis.

wistahpatsfan

According to the media, the only team in the NFL that is over-rated is the Patriots. If the Giants were the Arizona Giants or the Minnesota Giants, this team would be a 10-point underdog to New England. They were lucky to get out of SF and have done nothing to impress me so far. Their QB is net great, he's just good. The media market for NY is huge and that's what's driving the insane talk of HOF status for Eli. I think the spread is being influenced by all the money coming out of NY, too. The idea that, because they committed the greatest upset in SB history in 2007, they will do it again this time is also clouding the truth in the media. I have yet to hear one single mediot even mention that the Pats are the hottest team in the NFL on a ten-game winning streak, and yet the Giants are the hottest team in the league?

Not buying it.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ivanvamp

Yep. The Packers had 8 dropped passes....a total anomaly for that high-powered offensive machine.

During the regular season, the 49ers and Packers were #1 and #2 in the league, respectively, at taking care of the ball. The 49ers averaged 0.7 TO per game, and the Packers 1.1 TO per game.

In their games against the Giants, the 49ers turned it over twice (one unforced), and the Packers turned it over 4 times. So you're right - the Giants are playing great football, but my goodness...those other teams played *so* poorly relative to their own normal level.

And that's what happens...that's how inferior teams win. They play above their level and you play below it. That happens, you lose.

Nunchucks

Giants have battled injuries all year and got healthy for the playoffs, simple as that.

ivanvamp

The Pats have battled injuries all year long too. I already gave the games played stats. Tuck missed some games early. Blackburn and Amukamara have been playing recently after missing most of the year. But neither of them is great. Only Osi is the difference-maker that missed a bunch of games but now has been healthy during this streak.

There's no way that their improved health is what accounts for their dramatic improvement. No way. Unless we're saying that Osi Umenyiora really is that great of a player....which he may be.

Gronkandez

I didn't real the whole OP, but I think it's pretty simple. They smoked the defending champion, 15-1 Packers in Lambeau. It wasn't even as close as the score would indicate due to bad calls. Then won again, on the road, vs a very well balance 49ers team in a dog fight.

I think the better question is, are the Giants due for a regression? Perhaps, but to suggest they are overrated would be to question the validity of their last two wins IMO.

Tunescribe

The Giants beat the top two seeds in the NFC playoffs. That should dispel any "overrated" claims.

__________________

Beware ... The Patriot Attack Parrot!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ivanvamp

Maybe you should read the whole original post. No, I'm not being snarky. I say that because it's crystal clear that the Giants are playing tremendous football right now. The question is whether this is the "real" Giants or whether they're playing over their heads.

For example, take the Packers game. They thoroughly outplayed Green Bay, no question. But are the Giants 17 points better than Green Bay? No way. In order to beat them, they got 8 dropped passes from normally sure-handed GB, and they also got 4 turnovers from the #2 ball-security team in the league. They also got a game-changing 37-yard hail mary TD pass at the end of the first half.

Will they get such a hail mary again? Probably - heck, they friggin' did it to the Pats in SB 42 (not on the last play of the game, but that Tyree play was a hail mary for sure) - but seriously, that's so unlikely. Will they get 4 turnovers from a quality ball-security team again? They might, but they can't count on it. Will the Pats drop 8 passes? Geez, I hope not.

A lot of crazy things happened in that GB-NY game that allowed the Giants to win. Yes, they played very well, but they could play that game a hundred times and not have that crazy kind of stuff happen again like that.

ivanvamp

Don't misunderstand my post: The Giants are excellent. I have said in other threads that I think we need to expect that this Giants' team is really playing at this level, so the Pats better be prepared for a war. There is no question the Giants can win this game. I'm just wondering if they're really *THIS* good - their numbers the last 5 games are just SO off the charts better than what they were during the regular season, with no real explanation other than Osi is back and they're getting a lot of turnovers that they weren't getting during the season.