Decision to go for it on 4th & 2, up by 6, on your own 29, no timeout, no chance to review: EPIC FAIL!
Colts 35 - Pats 34: Next!
Decision to go for it on 4th & 2, up by 6, on your own 29, no timeout, no chance to review: EPIC FAIL!
Colts 35 - Pats 34: Next!
*awaits second fit of rage*
statistics show it was the correct call, they didnt execute as well as they should have, the colts won.
On their own 28 yard line? That is simply delusional. Period. Giving a guy like Peyton Manning a 28 yard shot at a win instead of a 70-80 yard drive for a win and then trying to justify it as being statistically correct is pure fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
Can't fk'ing believe I went to bed in the 3rd quarter. Probably missed one of the best games of the season. The pick-me-up was waking up to news of the win though.
*still awaiting the rage*
The only rage should go against Belichick. His team played for a win, and probably deserved a win. His selfish call was the only thing separating 4 quarters of solid effort from a win or a loss.
I believe that silver (and Belichick) are correct. Statistically, it was the correct call.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009...-vs-colts.html
they get the conversion the games over, They punt and manning IS good enough to drive the field. the defense was thin after banta cain got injured early in the game, They were gassed.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
It was the right call, we lost the end.
In my experience, giving yourself a chance to win the game is always better than not. Given the concept of opportunity cost (gamble the 4th and 2 and maybe win, else give yourself NO chance of winning) I'd never be happy with a coach making that call. While you make the 2 about half the time, you LOSE the game 100% of the time on the 50 or so percent of the time that you don't make it by giving Peyton and crew a 28 yard target to shoot for.
The Patriots have consistently had one of the deepest defenses of the last decade. To not trust them (gassed or not) to win the game for you is just sad...shows you how big Belichick's ego is. He should pocket that ego and trust his highly paid staff to...well, win the game.
Please stop playing devil's advocate (again) and re-read what I wrote. My complaint about the statistical validity has nothing to do with how often you make it...has to do with the chances of losing on the off chance (about half the time?) that you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
50 yard FG's make it about 50% of the time too. Why don't more coaches try them all the time? As you know, most would RATHER give the opposing team a long field than a short field in the event (half the time) of a miss.
I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm not happy about it. I don't like Belichick. He's a cheater and I don't buy his crappy outfit gimmick any more than I buy Michael Moore's soiled cap schtick. But, right is right. And he made the best call, assuming that the criteria for best is the one that gave his team the best chance to win.
I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding your clarification about what you meant (the link was about what happens if you don't make it in addition to how often you do). The bottom line is that Belichick's decision to go for it gave his team the best chance to win that game. That is supported by statistics.
You might argue that he should have chosen a different play. But, the decision to go for it was sound.
Whether or not to attempt a long field goal is an entirely different situation involving different statistics and math.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
If the Patriots converted, the game was over. According to historical data, they had a 60% chance of accomplishing that. That 60% is the NFL baseline. The Patriots being a better than baseline team offensively probably had better than a 60% chance.
THEN, if they failed to convert, they still had a chance to stop the Colts from scoring. From that spot on the field, the NFL baseline to stop that TD is 47%.
If they chose to punt and achieved an average 38 yard punt, the Colts would have had a 30% chance of scoring the TD.
The math, from the link I provided:
According to statistics, going for it on fourth down in that situation gave the Patriots a 9% better chance of winning the game than punting would have.Quote:
(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP
It seems unconventional only because, in most circumstances, the opponent either has time outs or there is more time left on the clock so that the advantage gained by converting isn't winning the game out-right. The advantage instead is only a few yards gained field and still needing another first down.
Where the **** is my unbridled rage!?
Stats only make sense with all things being equal. In this instance, they are not. You seem to negate the x-factor of momentum which WILDLY moved to the Colts' favor once the blew the play.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
That being said, let's play your game. If they convert (60% chance), they win. If they punt, they have a 70% chance of winning. Guess what, champ?
70 - 60 = 10.
Yup, that's right. Math wins again. 10% better chance of winning. Don't go for it...punt.
Incidentally, Chris Hansen had 4 punts in the game averaging 44 yds per (that's NET, btw) with a long of 55.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I am 99.9% sure if all the teammates surround the quarterback and just bulldoze their way forward, with quarterback jumps over the players wall and do the front head flip, they would gain that 2 extra yards instead of a throw. The 0.1% is for quarterback trips himself over.
The momentum factor was already in the Colts favor since they had been surging up to that point and the Patriots defense was gassed. And statistically, giving the Colts more momentum only increases the advantage of going for it rather than punting.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
Good grief. Have you been hitting some of our Oregon pinot down there? I know you're sharper than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
Read the link. Your math is wrong. You're not adding the chance that the Patriots had to stop the Colts if they failed the conversion. When you do that, it adds up to better total odds of winning (79%) than the 70% chance they had punting.
That's pretty good. But, how much statistical change do you think it would give the Colts going from a 38 to a 44 yard punt? 2% difference? Definitely not more than 9%.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
Ratty is just upset that his giants have lost every game they have played against a real team since finishing off their JV squad schedule.
Hes realizing that ELI manning was not worth 16 million a year, And that the giants have no chance of making the playoffs.
But the aforementioned JV team played and beat a nigh-unbeatable Patriots team last year...
9 out of 10 times the pats win that game. plain and simple.