Shurmur relying on analytics too much
AFTER HE received the gift of Pat Shurmur going for it on fourth-and-15 late in the Giants’ 27-21 loss to Arizona, Cardinals coach Kliff Kingsbury said he was not at all surprised Shurmur eschewed punting the ball away.
“I think he probably has his analytics the same way we do,’’ Kingsbury said, “and I think it probably popped up … if you don’t get it, get the ball back and at least you have a chance down six to go win it. So, I think he was playing the odds.’’
There is no doubt Shurmur, behind closed doors, points to a chart or a graph or numerical data that tells him he did the right thing late in the fourth quarter. As evidence, he will lean on this: The Giants, trailing by six points, did get the ball back with enough time (2:02) to mount a drive to scored the winning touchdown. He says this decision-making is the byproduct of analytics and feel for the game he is managing.
“I think there’s both,’’ Shurmur said. “Then you think of the players involved. It’s all part of it. It’s all part of it.’’
This was a prime example of why analytics at times must be ditched. There are odds on a team converting fourth-and-15 but those odds do not factor in the quarterback ( Daniel Jones was struggling) or the pass rush (the offensive line was brutal). And where do analytics fit when someone ( Kyler Murray) does something boneheaded (running out of bounds) to gift the Giants 40 extra seconds?
This predetermined approach is rampant, but some lean on it more than others. You get the feeling Shurmur leans on analytics a great deal. Probably more than he should.