Great Article: Other Side of the Coin re: Scott
by Since79 on Apr 28, 2009 11:51 AM PDT
Email
PrintHi All:
While I still feel that the Niners should have done better after round 1, and I'm upset that they didn't pick up guys on the board that could have dramatically helped us in round 2 (Rashad Johnson comes to mind -- Arizona got him after us in round 2) and round 3 (not a Coffee fan, would have rather seen a Sprowles type guy, there were a few left, or Shonn Green in round 2), etc. THERE'S ALWAYS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN. Always the chance that I'm totally WRONG!
I have been critical of Scotty Mac over the weekend. But I want so much to be wrong in my assessment. I want to say two years from now -- we have the best GM in football. Scotty is a visionary.
While this article doesn't change my mind about rounds 2-4, I do think it gives some great insight into the mind-set in the war room at the time, and it was a great read.
I'm a 30 year Niner fan. The last few years have been painful, not just because they lose too much, but how they lose -- 3rd downs have been a very bad joke. They hardly ever beat a really good offensive team.
So I was expecting some BIG-TIME defensive help in this draft. That didn't happen. So I don't see any improvement in our 3rd down package, nor do I feel any hope that when we play a team with a great offense this year we have any chance at winning unless we score 40 points ourselves.
Fooch, a really interesting stat from last year would be how many points the good offensive teams scored against us game by game. That's my point. They will be our playoff opponents, if we make the playoffs. We were AWFUL, literally nor competitive in any of those games that I recall. Maybe Fooch will prove me wrong with this notion. Or prove me right. . . .but we should know, rather than spouting off about a 13th ranked defense.
(First of all, 13th ain't that good! Second of all, if you hold bad teams to 7 points but good teams score 40, then what does that stat really mean to us? It means we played an easy schedule but got killed by good teams. So shouldn't we be highly concerned about that?)
Anyway . . this was the first article I've read that gave me at least a little hope for the future. It's fun. Enjoy it:
FOOCH'S NOTE: Had to delete the article but here's the link: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AjFAVK7k9a6U8WbPqtmQ.HBDubYF?slug=ms-trippintuesday042809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.
71 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I like this quote more than any other
"I got on the computer and checked the numbers" of the widely used chart that assigns points for draft picks, McCloughan says, "and the thing that’s interesting is that first-round picks the next year are only half as [valuable] as this year’s No. 1. I realize you don’t know where the team you trade with will finish, which affects the value, but it really makes no sense.
"Having two No. 1s gives us tons of leverage. We got huge value, not just for next year but if we decide to make a trade. We’ve got tons of cap room, so nothing’s holding us back."
He openly admits that they took a risk in getting equal return value, but admitted that they are open to using the picks to acquire proven veterans and plan on maximizing team talent by using the free cap space. It was a pure leverage play and I’m 100% behind that from a long-term perspective.
That’s what you want to hear from your GM after the draft.
You don’t want to hear quotes like Singletary gave the media after the draft where he openly admits that the team didn’t get what they wanted out of the draft.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Apr 28, 2009 12:27 PM PDT reply actions
Interesting thing is...
The interesting thing is that McCloughan runs the drafts now, and I don’t think there is any question about it. McCloughan saying he’s happy that what they got puts them in a great position and Silver’s accounts of their interaction before the draft make it sound like McCloughan indeed did get what he was looking for. Maybe Singletary was the one who didn’t get what he wanted.
I know they’re supposed to be on the same page, but McCloughan, in the end, is Singletary’s boss.
In any case, I also really like the position that trade has put the 49ers in (in regards to next offseason). Two first rounders (and all their other picks) and tons of cap space. What more could any NFL franchise want going into an offseason, right?
I also found the following quote pretty interesting:
‘Hmmm, Carolina’s got the toughest schedule in the league next year. [Jake] Delhomme’s a pretty good quarterback, but if he gets hurt … that pick could be pretty high.’ -McCloughan before making the trade
Delhomme is getting up there in years, and injury HAS played a role in his performance in recent years, hasn’t it? If he goes down, is their running game good enough to carry McCown (I’m assuming McCown gets the starting nod in that scenario, of course)?
Cards/Panthers game
In the playoffs Delhomme couldn’t throw (and it was his birthday) and they couldnt run either. They aren’t a perfect team and we could have traded to a team like the Giants who for sure is going to at least make the playoffs and probably to the SB. Panthers D was ranked 18th last year and if they trade Peppers for picks than their D will be worse. They also play the Saints and Falcons twice who have top 5 offenses (imagine matt ryan with Gonzalez now). They have a tough schedule. Definitely harder than ours. I say we get a pick 10-20 from them.
In Shaun Hill will trust
But they didn't . . .
:) Still, an interesting article.
hilarious quote
“Our thought was that if our guy’s there, someone had better blow our socks off, ‘cause I’m taking the big SOB who can score touchdowns.”
I think it’s been a while since we’ve had a “big SOB who can score touchdowns.”
Hopefully this time the emphasis is on the "big" rather than the other part.
Throwback unis? Yes. Throwback afros? YES!
is it really real?
i still can’t believe Michael Crabtree is a 49er. when will the reality kick in damn it!?
by Andrew Davidson on Apr 29, 2009 6:55 AM PDT up reply actions
When Madden 2010...
… first gets inserted into your Wii/PS3/360.
In Scot McCloughan’s Conference
RE: Coach Singletary made it clear there was some consideration given to Michael Oher. Did the choice come down to between those two, either Crabtree or Oher?
"He was one of the guys up there that we talked about. Again, once we got to 10 and Crabtree was there, it was over. He was our pick. I waited for a little while for some phone calls, but for me to trade out of that with Crabtree, it would have had to have been the trade of the century."
Looks like Sing wanted Oher, but McCloughan got giddy when he saw Crabtree was still on the Board. Already had a predetermination of what he was going to do before the draft. Trade for a future 1st round pick and Draft Crabtree if he’s there. Him saying that we would of picked Crabtree at 5 says it all. He wasn’t thinking of the 49ers needs, he was thinking of his man-crush the entire draft.
[Jake] Delhomme’s a pretty good quarterback, but if he gets hurt … that pick could be pretty high.’ "
Well if he doesn’t this plan can backfire, nice to know you’re hoping that Jake gets injured though ..but Panthers most likely make the playoffs next year, sorry Scot I don’t think this was very smart.
http://www.49ersboard.blogspot.com
The point is McC went after the VERY BPA which is what they said they were going to do.
They were not going to draft for need in the 1st round. Now if the BPA is also a need that is great or if they are really close. But, in this case, the BPA was miles ahead of Oher.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
I realize that
McC wanted to go BPA.
But how does he say that if the 49ers had the 5th pick they’d still go after Crabtree?
Andre Smith is sittng there, Best OT after the college season, obviously leaving the combine and his pro-day mearsurables really hurt him. But Smith would solidify our OT position.
http://www.49ersboard.blogspot.com
Are you saying that...
… even at #5, Crabtree wouldn’t have been the BPA? Outside of the two tackles and Curry, who can you really say is undebatably better than Crabtree? Crabtree was #1 on a lot of boards before his injury, and didn’t slip too far after that.
No
Obviously McC saying that we still would of went with Crabs at 5 means that he would’ve been the best player on the board at the time.
But what would it take for McC to start thinking of needs and not BPA?
http://www.49ersboard.blogspot.com
You don't draft for need...
… with a top 10 pick. Period. This is especially true on a team that is devoid of pure starting talent at almost EVERY position.
by sfgfan on Apr 28, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hmm
Stafford
J.Smith
Tyson jackson (Especially Tyson)
Aaron Curry
Mark Sanchez
A.Smith
Heyward-Bey
Monroe
Raji
All drafted as a fill for a need postion and all in the top-10.
http://www.49ersboard.blogspot.com
Yeah.
And many before the draft believed Sanchez would be there at #10. Similarly, many believe A.Smith would have fallen at least a little closer to Oher and Monroe should have went ahead of him.
Basically, you can take for need if you don’t like any higher rated players to take the starting spot for your current player(s), but you don’t draft for need when you have no starter there to begin with. Regardless of what Morgan and Hill offer in terms of WR talent, they should not discourage ANY team from picking Crabtree.
We all get that you didn’t like this draft. Heck, we all get that you don’t like McCloughan. But to draft for need and obviously reach for a player (I’m assuming you were asking for Oher here?) is/was wrong for the 49ers when they have a LT but don’t have a starting WR.
I just don’t understand how McCloughan can justify this Draft.
4 Biggest needs on the 49ers roster pre-draft. (NT, FS, RT, PRsher)
McC waited until the 7th round to finally fill one of those needs.
But really should I be even saying that Curtis Taylor is going to fill our need at FS? No, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.49ersboard.blogspot.com
Isn't the justification ...
… that players who were available at those positions weren’t ones who he thought would be improvements.
It sounds like you’d be happier if he picked players who he expected to fail, simply because they fit those needs.
You can’t get caught up in “needs” in a draft, and end up drafting players who don’t end up contributing. I wonder, if Everette Brown ends up struggling, if posters on this forum will rescind their calls for McL’s head. If he ends up being an all-pro, and we don’t get as good a player in next year’s draft, I’ll sure as heck change my tune on it.
We could win the Super Bowl
with a 14-2 record next year and people on here would complain that if we drafted “the right way with the right needs” this year, we would have been undefeated. It won’t end.
It's not Crabtree
It’s that the 49ers went an entire draft and only selected one guy in Curtis Taylor to fill a need.
Coffee was a reach in round 3 because the 49ers didn’t have a 4th round pick. During the draft, you only reach for needs (IMO).
Mike Goodson is going to be a great RB for Carolina, if he can find some playing time. A 4th round pick who I believe is a lot better then Coffee.
Everette Brown fits their 4-3 scheme perfectly.(Doesn’t mean he’d fit the 49ers scheme)
The 9ers reached for a RB but didn’t reach for a OT, even if that OT had great value in the 5th round and his name was Jamon Meredith.
http://www.49ersboard.blogspot.com
why why f'ing why
Does everyone keep pinning the #43 pick on Everette Brown and him alone?
Connor Barwin, William Beatty, Sean Smith, Michael Johnson… all 1st round caliber talents that were available at #43.
This isn’t about Everette Brown. In any case, it is now obvious why McC made the trade. He practically admits to going into the draft wanting next year’s 1st rounder and I’m willing to bet he didn’t care who was available at #43… he was going to try to make the trade. I still don’t like the decision, but it’s not a “bad” trade…. just questionable. It will remain a questionable move regardless of who was (or will be) selected with the picks traded.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Apr 29, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Lets look at recent receiving stats
Here are the numbers for the 49ers leading receiver for each year since T.O. left.
year rec. yds. td
2008 61 835 7
2007 50 600 5
2006 40 733 3
2005 48 733 5
2004 47 641 3
How is stud receiver not a need for this team?
If Crabtree meets expectations and can give 80+ receptions, 1000+ yards, and 10+ TD’s he will absolutely fill a need that the Niners have had for 5 years.
Dont; know about the rest of them...
..but Detroit has Culpepper, and trust me, they have bigger needs than a QB who probably won’t play as much this year as people think. When the #1 overall pick is NOT picked as a true right now “need”, then the argument is pointless.
this isn’t the young Culpepper anymore. It’s the Culpepper that tore all 3 major ligaments in his knee and had a passers rating of 64 last year.
Therefore, QB was still a need.
http://www.49ersboard.blogspot.com
Maybe so
but that is sort of like the unfair Alex Smith argument. Sure, they may not (and ARE not) the best QBs, but when put on a bad enough team, anybody can look terrible. They drafted Stafford as much (if not more) to be the face of the franchise, not to run it from day one.
to be fair..
He wanted to reach for Tyson Jackson and Michael Oher to do exactly that… draft for need.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Apr 28, 2009 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions
That's all speculation, though.
If I’m not mistaken, the Jackson thing was speculation from beat writers (Maiocco specifically). The Oher thing was a Singletary want, not necessarily a McCloughan want, wasn’t it?
I think it's fairly obvious
If Crabtree was taken, then Oher was going to be the pick. The Tyson Jackson part was from Maiocco and can be taken with a grain of salt.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Apr 29, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Obvious...
… or not, I’m sure glad the draft fell the way it is. I’d be extremely upset right now if Oher were the pick.
There's NO way
that you can make this statement: Panthers most likely make the playoffs next year.
No way.
Carolina was 12-4 in 2008. In 2007 they were 7-9 and in 2006 they were 8-8.
Last year they were an overrated team (as shown by their blowout to Arizona in the playoffs).
In the first 10 games last year they had two victories over two of the worst teams in the NFL last year (Oakland & Detroit). Also they beat both Arizona and Chicago when the Cardinals and the Bears blew 14 and 11 point second half leads.
That said, they did beat Oakland & Detroit and they did come back against the Bears & Cardinals.
Still, again, there’s no way to assume that Carolina will make the playoffss next year. They can just as easily go 6-10.
Most likely sounds
a whole lot closer to ‘fact’ than it does to fiction. The fact is that in the past four or five seasons the last place team in the NFC South won the division the next year.
Last year was an exception in that the last place, 2007 Falcons, didn’t win the division. They won the wild card.
Most likely, in today’s NFL, is an almost meaningless statement.
Even with all of your evidence
according to you if it’s not fact then in today’s NFL, is an almost meaningless statement.
http://www.49ersboard.blogspot.com
Say What?
Look, there’s not an NFC team I’d say is ‘likely’ to make the playoffs.
In the AFC I’d say the Steelers & New England and that’s it.
If you mean that saying a team is likely to make the playoffs is a meaningless statement, then I certainly agree because that was my point.
To spark debate
I think that’s the main purpose of these forums(Or whatever you would categorize Niners Nation as).
http://www.49ersboard.blogspot.com
NO way?
There’s no way he can say they are a likely playoff team, but you can call them overrated due to a loss in the playoffs to Arizona where their QB has the worst game of his career?
They have a good team and are a playoff contender.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Apr 28, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions
They were an overrated team
not because of their playoff loss to Arizona, but due more to their regular season. I laid out a few facts regarding their regular season in my earlier post.
They were a good team last year. That said, they were closer to a 10-6, 9-7 type of team than a 12-4 team.
Saying a team is a playoff contender is a lot different than saying that they will ‘most likely make the playoffs.’
The Arizona Cardinals will be a playoff contender in 2009. Would anybody be surprised if they missed the playoffs next year? Not me.
by GeoMak on Apr 28, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'd be worried about the Cardinals this year
They just solved their biggest problem landing a good RB in the draft and they are keeping Boldin. I wouldn’t be surprised if Arizona won 12 games this year. Unless injuries or the defense collapses that team looks that good.
The 49ers best shot is a wildcard and setting themselves up for a good push in 2010.
There's just no way to know
until they start playing the games. There’s a real fine line between winning and losing in the NFL.
Last year, the Bears finished 9-7. They blew three games late in the fourth quarter against NFC South teams (TB, Carolina & Atlanta). In the Atlanta game they regained the lead with 11 seconds left, only to blow it.
They just as easily (and should have) been 12-4 and in the playoffs instead of sitting home at 9-7.
On paper, you are somewhat ‘correct’ about the Cardinals (they have a new OC and DC next year, among others). However, once camp starts and the season progresses there are so many variables it’s not funny.
by GeoMak on Apr 28, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Cards
they dumped James. Beanie Wells will get crushed with our enhanced D. P-Willy will welcome him to the NFL and than to the IR on the season opener.
In Shaun Hill will trust
they went 12-4 last year without their best offensive player for a significant part of the year. That RB tandem should only be better. I don’t think its just as likely that they go 6-10
Thing A
I don't think they'll go 6-10 either.
But who knows. Once the games start all bets are off.
In 2007 the Packers went 13-3 and to the Championship game.
2008? 6-10.
And by most accounts Aaron Rodgers played well in place of Favre (he played well in the two games I watched).
Their problem was their defense which led to the firing of their DC after the season.
Sing wanted Oher
Because he was planning on a smash mouth football team this season. Go back and read the earlier interviews from Sing.
To paraphrase: McC looked at me and said Crabtree was the highest rated player on our board. I nodded my head.
Translation; McC was looking at Sing to understand and approve the move. If Sing’s plans involved Crabtree than I doubt that exchange would have been needed.
further translation
McC to Singletary: You stick to coaching and I’ll handle player personnel.
We know who to praise/blame for all player personnel decisions from here on out.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Apr 28, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions
If he doesn’t get hurt the plan won’t backfire. We’ll still have two first round picks. That’s no small shakes.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Apr 28, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions
"My head is always spinning," he says. "Now, with the second first-rounder next year, I’m thinking, ‘Can we trade for somebody? Should we investigate this stuff that’s out there about the Cardinals moving Boldin?’ Even though this is supposed to be a slower period, my thoughts are dominated by, ‘How do we improve this roster?’ It’s kind of sad, but that’s the truth."
Yes please.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Or..
Try to weasel Peppers away for a 2nd and 3rd next year and really put the Panthers season in jeopardy. Just a wish…. there’s no way they would actually take that trade.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Apr 28, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions
With their first pick
They would want more. Like their first round pick and 2nd or 3rd or Alex Smith? We dont need him now.
In Shaun Hill will trust
I would really...
… really, really be upset if the 49ers gave up, basically, half of a draft for a player who is almost 30 and doesn’t even fit your defensive scheme.
You asked how we did against the top offenses… Well, ask and ye shall receive. Below is a list of the teams the Niners played who were in the top ten in points scored, and how many points each team put up against the Niners.
- The Cardinals – 23 & 29 (tied 3rd in scoring)
- The Saints – 31 (top scoring offense)
- The Patriots – 30 (8th in scoring)
- The Eagles – 40 (6th in scoring)
- The Giants – 29 (tied 3rd in scoring)
- The Jets – 14 (9th in scoring)
All that said, here’s what we can see, in terms of scoring:
- We gave up an average of 28 points against top ten scoring offenses in 2008
- Under Nolan, we gave up an average of 30.6 points per game against top ten offenses (five games)
- Under Singletary, we gave up an average of 21.5 points per game against top ten offenses (two games)
- Prior to the Bye, the defense gave up an average of 28.75 points per game.
- Since the Bye week, the defense gave up an average of 18.9 points per game
So it would seem we’ve already made improvements defensively just by having Singletary put an end to the Nolan hybrid defense. Since the bye, the defense shaved 10 points (TD and field goal) off all game scores, and about nine points off games against the top defenses in the NFL.
Just thought it was an interesting comparison. Others may be able to put those numbers into perspective better than me.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
thats
a really good point. you put it that way and it doesn’t seem so bad and as for me i think we made a smart decision concerning the draft.
by football is life on Apr 28, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions
good analysis
I think this specifically points out the area that improved the most last year:
Passing Yards Allowed by Game
W10 (Cardinals): 328
W11 (Rams): 280
W12 (Cowboys): 334
W13 (Bills): 193
W14 (Jets): 123
W15 (Dolphins): 150
W16 (Rams): 214
W17 (Redskins): 143
You can see the huge improvement in pass defense at the end of last year. What I question is whether that will translate to the 2009 season given the turnover in the defensive secondary. Our secondary is not the same as last year and I believe it will be worse off unless a move is made in FA/Trade.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Apr 28, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Prior to the bye week, the Niners were giving up 329 total yards per game.
After the bye, they gave up 322 total yards per game.
Ugh, that looks a lot uglier than the points allowed! How about passing yards?
217.6 pre-bye
220 post-bye
Great… Suddenly it doesn’t look like such an improvement was made in terms of total defense OR pass defense.
Obviously, the objective of the game is to minimize your opponent’s scoring, but how many yards you allow seems like a reasonably good indicator of just how good you are defensively. I’d have felt a lot better about this if the Niners showed growth during the second half of the season.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Comparing before and after the bye...
… can be a bit misleading if you’re just looking for improvement. If you divide the season into four parts, I’m pretty sure there will actually be an improvement trend in there.
Good way of looking at it. Let’s check it out:
First quarter of the season:
Average points allowed: 24.35
Average total yards allowed: 335.75
Average passing yards allowed: 211.25
Second quarter of the season:
Average points allowed: 33.25
Average total yards allowed: 323.5
Average passing yards allowed: 224
Third quarter of the season:
Average points allowed: 20.75
Average total yards allowed: 384.5
Average passing yards allowed: 284
Fourth quarter of the season:
Average points allowed: 17
Average total yards allowed: 260.25
Average passing yards allowed: 157.5
So scoring went from bad to worse, then got better and better. Total yards went from bad to slightly better to much worse to much better. Passing yards went good, good, bad, great. Fourth quarter numbers were buoyed by the obliteration of the Jets, who had 182 total offensive yards. Some might say this was helped by the Jets being on the decline at the end of the season, but they were still 9th in scoring at the end of the year, so take that with a grain of salt.
Anyway, you’re right that their overall defensive numbers improved during the fourth quarter of the season, but they also regressed horribly in terms of yards during the third quarter of the season, while still allowing fewer points. So this isn’t the pretty picture I was hoping for, but it still isn’t damning evidence that we haven’t already shown improvement defensively.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
That third quarter...
… is an interesting stretch, considering the team actually went 2-2, I think.
It could also be argued that the defense improved as the offense improved, as they were on the field less. Of course I’m a little lazy right now to actually look that up.
You are correct, we went 2-2 in that stretch.
That’s the thing about the NFL…. You can look at the numbers in a vacuum (which is essentially what I’m doing here), but it doesn’t tell you the complete story. You really need to take a look at a lot of factors to really understand what happened. There’s really a lot more to what happened than simply points and yards. Unfortunately, I don’t really have the time or smarts to put it all together, so we just get a vacuum… =)
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Yeah.
That non-vacuumness is what makes football so much harder to quantify than baseball. While advanced stats in baseball still certainly don’t tell the whole tale, they do an extremely good job of it. In football, however, that is not the case.
Eh.
One could argue that Strickland was a huge part of the secondary. However, one could also argue that Brown was stepping into the show toward the end of last season. I don’t think the secondary is really worse off, and if anything it’s at least a push. While the 49ers definitely need the likes of Brown, Spencer, and Smith to step it up this year, how would they ever get the opportunities if someone is always in the way.
Of course, this is coming from someone who thought the 49ers should have let Strickland go last offseason so that the youth can play.
One thing I failed to mention is that the 49ers were 22nd in scoring, averaging 21.2 points per game, and were 23rd in points allowed, at 23.8. Again, off these numbers, here’s what we know:
- They scored 21.375 points per game before the bye
- They scored 21 points per game after the bye.
So offensively they really weren’t any better or worse off in terms of scoring. Defensively, we already saw that they were giving up 28 points per game under Nolan, but 19 under Singletary. So again, it SEEMS like there was a significant improvement made due to the transition of Nolan to Singletary. And again, someone else can probably put this into better perspective than I can.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Problem with that stat
Most of those were with Nolan. The Jets game we won with Singletary and lost to the cardinals by one play and that was Martz’s deal.
In Shaun Hill will trust
You are correct, and that’s why I broke down the scoring between Singletary games and Nolan games. I didn’t want to include wins and losses in the breakdown, just simply how the defense did in terms of keeping the other team out of the end zone. It’s not very comprehensive, though, considering things like interceptions returned for a touchdown aren’t accounted for (as far as I know, I grabbed the numbers from pro-football-reference.com). But you are correct, Nolan was the head coach for five of the games against top offenses, while Singletary was head coach against only two.
And combining how we did in terms of defensive yards allowed and scoring allowed, it’s just a more interesting look at how we fared against the top offenses in the NFL versus how we did against the non-elite offenses.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Uggh
I thought a hit reply. ^ This is a reply for JRPhillips’s post with scoring. We Crabtree coffee/clayton/sheets and an enhanced D we will win more games
In Shaun Hill will trust
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
- Video: Bill Belichick implores his defense to make the Giants throw to Mario Manningham
- Training Day: Learning the 40 with an Olympian
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
