Jump to content
SportsWrath

Recommended Posts

If the masses need to debate ad nauseum the worth of a player than he's no good bottom line. This guy is taking up valuable roster space and must be jetisoned from the roster. Let's get a DT from FA's !!!!

 

No good, yet won a starting spot in 2005? Explain that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nutty Sack
No good, yet won a starting spot in 2005? Explain that.

 

 

Please 100 times have we stated this. The Fab Four were in Albany. He was the lesser of all evils.The only thing he's got going for him is that he is big. End of stoty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you using that stat as an argument for him, or against him? :confused:

you're easily confused. My point is I don't see him as a positive if he cannot stay healthy. I'm sure the stats on the Cin. Reds would show they are a much better team with Ken Griffey on the field. But if he can't get on the field, what good is he?

Link to post
Share on other sites
For a #1 draft pick he's a disappointment at best. Right now he's a good rotation guy and a pretty decent DT. Again....very disappointing for a 1st rounder. We need to address the position through the draft, but will now have to look in FA as well to replace Clancy.

 

Giants were far from disappointed with Joseph's plat last year. He was a big reason behind the success of the defense, and if you put a competant DT next to him his skills would be evident (instead of having to compensate for a lesser player like Clancy)...

Link to post
Share on other sites
you're easily confused. My point is I don't see him as a positive if he cannot stay healthy. I'm sure the stats on the Cin. Reds would show they are a much better team with Ken Griffey on the field. But if he can't get on the field, what good is he?

No need to be an asshole, it was just a question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Giants were far from disappointed with Joseph's plat last year. He was a big reason behind the success of the defense, and if you put a competant DT next to him his skills would be evident (instead of having to compensate for a lesser player like Clancy)...

Are we talking about his career, or last year? I was talking about his career. I don't have much doubt that if he played all out--all of the time and actually stayed on the field....he'd probably turn into a pretty good DT. You, nor I, nor anybody has seen that as of yet. We've seen flashes. You can see flashes in any NFL player.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we talking about his career, or last year? I was talking about his career. I don't have much doubt that if he played all out--all of the time and actually stayed on the field....he'd probably turn into a pretty good DT. You, nor I, nor anybody has seen that as of yet. We've seen flashes. You can see flashes in any NFL player.

 

Last year was damn good flash, contrary to what the Fab 4 thinks. Joseph played very well in 2005 before getting hurt, and the team missed him a lot, as evidenced by the decline in overall defensive performance. Last year was first time he had a full offseason program and training camp (rookie in 2003, torn pectoral in 2004), and he did very well. Now I'd like to see how he'd do playing next to another strong DT...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joseph was a very solid DT for us this season. Coming out of college, I never really expected him to be a dominant type of DT but one that can plug the middle and get a pass rush and make an impact on defense. He did that for the most part when healthy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to piss on the parade but the only way this analysis works Money is if the rest of the players on defence are exactly the same. And I don't think they were.

 

The only way to give a true reflection of losing Joseph is to factor in all the other injuries that hit the defence. If you do that then he will become an even smaller proportion of the overall number decline.

 

Equally you would have to check how the opposition offences were ranked.

Edited by AussieGiant
Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate to piss on the parade but the only way this analysis works Money is if the rest of the players on defence are exactly the same. And I don't think they were.

 

The only way to give a true reflection of losing Joseph is to factor in all the other injuries that hit the defence. If you do that then he will become an even smaller proportion of the overall number decline.

 

Equally you would have to check how the opposition offences were ranked.

 

I don't agree with that. You don't need the rest of the defense to remain the same in order to observe the absence of a player, especially when the player's absence and a defensive decline are statistical correlates. I mean, if you watched the games and knew what you were watching, then you don't need statsitics to illustrate that losing Joseph was a big blow.

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, I checked the rankings of oppossing offenses, and their was not substantial difference

Link to post
Share on other sites
Recently there has been a lot of negative sentiment directed towards William Joseph, with posters suggesting his performance in 2005 was problematic and that he needs to be replaced. So I decided to investigate this issue and provide a detailed examination of the Giants defensive performance with and without Joseph in 2005. Here are the results of my research...

 

Games With William Joseph

 

Arizona

@New Orleans

@San Diego

St. Louis

@Dallas

Denver

Washington

@San Francisco

Minnesota

 

Key Statistics

 

n = 9

 

Points Allowed Per Game: 18.6

 

Yards Allowed Per Game: 319.0

 

Rushing Yards Allowed Per Game: 114.0

 

Passing Yards Allowed Per Game: 205.0

 

Sacks Per Game: 2.6

 

Games Without William Joseph

 

Philadelphia

@Seattle

Dallas

@Philadelphia

Kansas City

@Washingtion

@Oakland

 

Key Statistics

 

n = 7

 

Points Allowed Per Game: 21.0

 

Yards Allowed Per Game: 338.4

 

Rushing Yards Allowed Per Game: 122.6

 

Passing Yards Allowed Per Game: 215.8

 

Sacks Per Game: 2.3

 

Conclusion

 

As the statistics indicate, the defense experienced a significant decline in production after Joseph was sidelined due to injury. By any objective measure, Joseph was a strong contributor to the defense when he was healthy, as evidenced by the drop-off in defensive output after he was injured. Therefore, those of you who suggest that Joseph was part of problem instead of being part of the solution are simply off base ... the defense performed better when he was in the line-up. Suffice to say, the methods employed by anyone who discredits William Joseph's play in 2005 are about as useful for evaluating defensive players as forks are for eating soup.

 

Discuss.

 

 

This is a very good post, something that definitely should have been said. Joseph had a good year last year and should be even better this coming season. But Money, I use a fork to eat chicken noodle soup. . . Im just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree with that. You don't need the rest of the defense to remain the same in order to observe the absence of a player, especially when the player's absence and a defensive decline are statistical correlates. I mean, if you watched the games and knew what you were watching, then you don't need statsitics to illustrate that losing Joseph was a big blow.

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, I checked the rankings of oppossing offenses, and their was not substantial difference

 

Good to know the offences were rated about the same. I'll take your word on it.

 

In my opinion loosing Joseph was a blow, I want to say that right now.

 

However he was only one of many players to be lost from the starting line up in the various games. You have to admit that all those stats are affected by losing 3 LB's plus Grierson being injured and still playing? No?

 

For me Joseph is about a 30% proportion of the over impact you mentioned, with Pierce being about another 40%, plus Tobor and Emmons another 30% between them.

 

If you could name the starting line-ups along with those matches you mention then you get a better overall picture. Can you do that easily?

 

Again, Joseph was playing well and was a important lose to the D.

 

But number one was Pierce, number two was the collective lose of the whole LB core and number 3 was Joseph. If we had the starting D line-ups we would have a better idea. Maybe I am wrong.

 

Also, props for doing the analysis in the first place, I wish I had some more time to talk about this and do what I asked myself.

Edited by AussieGiant
Link to post
Share on other sites
Please 100 times have we stated this. The Fab Four were in Albany. He was the lesser of all evils.The only thing he's got going for him is that he is big. End of stoty.

 

You clowns couldn't find Albany if I spotted you the A, L, B, A, and the N

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nutty Sack
was that before or after you where tounge kissing lockhart?

 

xinsrc_25207020513301402716523.jpg

 

 

Go back to reporting posters and playing schoolyard monitor on that nursery school board !!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Floyd The Barber
was that before or after you where tounge kissing lockhart?

 

xinsrc_25207020513301402716523.jpg

 

 

do you have your Leprachaun costume ready for Friday when you march the streets of Greenwhich Village with your LILGO counterparts ??

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we talking about his career, or last year? I was talking about his career. I don't have much doubt that if he played all out--all of the time and actually stayed on the field....he'd probably turn into a pretty good DT. You, nor I, nor anybody has seen that as of yet. We've seen flashes. You can see flashes in any NFL player.

 

 

i see the same thing !! Joseph has yet to show consistancy.

 

A flash here a flash there so what!

 

#1 pick !! i am not impressed!!! :TD:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nutty Sack
i see the same thing !! Joseph has yet to show consistancy.

 

A flash here a flash there so what!

 

#1 pick !! i am not impressed!!! :TD:

 

 

 

He has shown consistancy.............consistantly ineffective...........first round pick !! I'm embarrased !! :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...