Facebook Pixel

    A Statistical Deep Dive Into Daniel Jones’ Abysmal Performance in the Giants’ Season-Opening Loss

    Giants quarterback Daniel Jones had a terrible first game of the 2024 season, but just how bad was it? Let's look at the story the statistics tell.

    Published on

    New York Giants fans and neutral NFL viewers alike were largely left with the same primary takeaway from the G-Men’s season-opening game against the Minnesota Vikings: Daniel Jones was simply dreadful. But just how awful was his game? Let’s dive into some stats that can help to contextualize just how ineffective Jones was against Minnesota.

    Breaking Down Daniel Jones’ Dreadful Performance

    Let’s get started with some of the simplest metrics. First of all, the output; the Giants didn’t register a touchdown, scoring just six points on two field goals. Even among the field goals, the first of the two was generated by field position as the Giants forced a fumble deep in Vikings territory. The other was a 50-yarder, not indicative of a particularly strong drive.

    Jones’ traditional stat line was incredibly unimpressive as well. He threw 42 passes and completed only 22 of them despite an average depth of target of just 3.8 yards. Due to that low completion rate paired with the modest depth of each throw, he recorded just 186 yards but still threw a pair of interceptions, one of which was returned for a touchdown.

    With a passer rating of 44.3, it was the third-worst game of Jones’ career by that metric. It was also his third-worst game in terms of first downs recorded per pass attempt. All of this was despite the Vikings leading big for more or less the entire game, which should have led to a favorable game script for big passing numbers.

    Perhaps most troublingly, Jones saw the second-lowest blitz rate (at 10.3%) he has ever faced in any game of his career, and the third-lowest of any quarterback through the 1 p.m. slot of Week 1.

    Historically, Jones has struggled against the blitz but performed at an approximately average level when not blitzed. Last year, he was 36th among 42 qualifiers in adjusted completion percentage against the blitz but 10th when not blitzed. Today, however, the low blitz rate didn’t appear to help at all.

    While it’s not a hard conclusion at which to arrive just using traditional stats, more advanced numbers also suggest that Jones should have had a much better game.

    As you may have surmised from the short average throw we discussed above, Jones’ expected completion percentage was a hefty 79.6%, giving him an absolutely staggering -26.2% completed percentage vs. expected.

    Now, let’s take a look at those turnovers. The first was on a short throw, giving Andrew Van Ginkel the opportunity to pick it off faster than any other pick over the past couple of years and take it to the house in very short order.

    The other pick may not have directly granted the Vikings a touchdown, but it may as well have, as it effectively took six points off of the board for the Giants. It was a fourth down, so no argument can really be made that Jones should have thrown the ball away or taken the sack. However, he pretty clearly could’ve found a better option than firing a pass at Darius Slayton in what more or less amounted to triple coverage.

    Certain advanced metrics such as EPA (expected points added) per play aren’t made available until the day after a game or even later. Still, if the immediately available stats are any indication, nothing that pops up for Jones will paint a particularly favorable picture of the embattled New York quarterback.

    This past offseason, the Giants made the choice to pass on some elite quarterback prospects atop the draft board, instead investing in top wideout Malik Nabers to help Jones succeed. This April, however, things may not play out the same way if Jones keeps putting out performances like this one.