How Belichick, Brady, Manning, some math & a ball made me lose a religion

[WannaBe_80z]

This thread is NOT picking me up.

[hanratty21]

I am pretty sure with that loss, the Pats have virtually no chance of controlling home field advantage. We all know how that works out for them. As far as the G-men making the playoffs, who knows...the entire NFC East seems to be imploding...not just them. They shouldn't have been a 5-0 team anyway. It was all smoke and mirrors.

@ FL - I am IGNORING your 'stats' as I don't care to pay any attention to some blog-dick's analysis and revere it as fact. Speak to me like a man, not like a google-bot and I'll be glad to continue with you. If you give the Colts the ball on the 28 yard line in a 2 minute drill, I'll put my money there everytime. The idea that ANYONE could stop them is just stupid. My comparison to the FG situation is entirely appropriate, btw.

[silverx2]

i have faith that the patriots even without home field advantage are capable of going to the superbowl.

they were one bad spot from the ref away from beating Indy In Indy. No reason to say that wont be able to beat them in the playoffs once the multiple defensive players that were deactivated for this game are available for the next.

the colts getting the ball back either way there is a chance they can march down the field and score. The pats picking up 4th and 2 and the game is over.

Simple as that, damned if you do damned if you don't. I trust the offense over the defense after the drive the colts had prior to this situation.

[hanratty21]

Colts win in Indy in 2007
Broncos win at Invesco in 2006
Speaking of stats, since the win at Heinz Field against a then-rookie Ben Roethlisberger, it don't look good.

[silverx2]

hanratty you seem more upset that BB had the balls to go for it then most pats fans. did you have money on the game or something?

[hanratty21]

Actually, not upset at all. Shocked that the Pats fans who live and die by their team would not be furious about allowing their arrogant head coach to choose their destiny instead of letting the team play it out on the field.

[lefteyewilly]

This thread is NOT picking me up.

agreed.

[silverx2]

Actually, not upset at all. Shocked that the Pats fans who live and die by their team would not be furious about allowing their arrogant head coach to choose their destiny instead of letting the team play it out on the field.

How is letting the offense try and win the game not letting the team play it out on the field? what are the chances Tom Brady picks up two yards? Id say really ****ing damn good. The refs gave them a bad spot on the ball imho and i think they got those 2 yards.

What im more upset about is the pats going into the prevent defense for the colts touchdown drive before the 4th and 2. the prevent defense has never ever worked against a good team. EVER.

[FlashLackey]

@ FL - I am IGNORING your 'stats' as I don't care to pay any attention to some blog-dick's analysis and revere it as fact. Speak to me like a man, not like a google-bot and I'll be glad to continue with you. If you give the Colts the ball on the 28 yard line in a 2 minute drill, I'll put my money there everytime. The idea that ANYONE could stop them is just stupid. My comparison to the FG situation is entirely appropriate, btw.

I didn't just take some "blog-dick's" analysis as fact on the face of it. I read the article, considered the logic and looked at the math myself. He's right. And he's not the only one to come to the same conclusion.

How have I not spoken to you like a man? Do you want me to coddle you by not questioning points that I think you're wrong about? Does speaking like a man, for you, involve insisting things without backing it up and ignoring what the other person has pointed out? I think that a man should admit when they are wrong or have something better than insistence in response to an argument or facts that they are faced with.

Stating that you would bet that the Colts would score from the 28 really speaks nothing to whether or not it was the right call to go for it. I would bet that as well because, as we have already gone over, they had a high chance of scoring. However, they did have some chance of not scoring. That chance plus the Patriots good chance of converting adds up to a higher chance of winning than punting to Manning did.

And you can't have it both ways. In that quarter alone, Manning had two huge touchdown drives. It was not a bad decision for Belichick to try and win the game over two yards while he had the chance rather than give Manning another shot to do what he had already done twice within the last 15 minutes of play.

I understand that you hate the Patriots. I don't like them either. I'm with Joey Porter on that. But, I think your zealousness has clouded your thought on this point.

[hanratty21]

And he's not the only one to come to the same conclusion.

How about you read some of the comments on that site not just the '2nd blog dick's' opinion. As I stated, the stats are being applied incorrectly.

How have I not spoken to you like a man? Do you want me to coddle you...

You're misinterpreting...again. I said to speak like a man, not like a googlebot posting random links. You come up with your own statements and stop trying to just post links disputing my independent thoughts and I will feel you are a man/human/pick your title here.

Stating that you would bet that the Colts would score from the 28 really speaks nothing to whether or not it was the right call to go for it. I would bet that as well because, as we have already gone over, they had a high chance of scoring. However, they did have some chance of not scoring.

That chance of not scoring goes up EXPONENTIALLY with another 50 or so yards to cover.

And you can't have it both ways. In that quarter alone, Manning had two huge touchdown drives.

And the Patriots had put up one interception on Manning in the same quarter. 2 scores, 1 interception. That's 66%, stat-boy.

I understand that you hate the Patriots. I don't like them either. I'm with Joey Porter on that. But, I think your zealousness has clouded your thought on this point.

If you go back and read my posts, I've actuallly thrown some pretty nice compliments out there towards the Pats (as a team.) I don't like Belichick (though he did come from the Giants' organzation) and I believe his ego has now made him bigger than his team. I hate the Cowboys too, but I can't imagine Tom Landry ever making that call.

[FlashLackey]

How about you read some of the comments on that site not just the '2nd blog dick's' opinion. As I stated, the stats are being applied incorrectly.

Point out which of those comments you stand by, "come up with your own statements"-boy. We can go from there.

You're misinterpreting...again. I said to speak like a man, not like a googlebot posting random links. You come up with your own statements and stop trying to just post links disputing my independent thoughts and I will feel you are a man/human/pick your title here.

I didn't post random links. I posted a specific link that spelled out the math and statistics of the situation so that I wouldn't have to re-write it myself. After you fumbled around trying to discount it, I ultimately had to re-write it in so many ways anyway. So, yeah, I guess I should have just cut and paste it over here instead.

That chance of not scoring goes up EXPONENTIALLY with another 50 or so yards to cover.

Last time I checked, the difference between 53% and 30% is not exponential, let alone EXPONENTIAL.

And, for the third time, this was not a choice between those two percentages.

And the Patriots had put up one interception on Manning in the same quarter. 2 scores, 1 interception. That's 66%, stat-boy.

And intercepting the ball was also a possibility after a failed conversion, wrong-boy.

[lefteyewilly]

jeebus christmas someone lease split the posts from this thread out already.

[clicky2]

Look what the **** I did?

Honestly, the call was borderline insane, but so be it. Every game is filled with 'em (or at least chances to make them).

I think the biggest issue I had with the call was the fact that they called their final TO prior to it ... thus giving up any chance for review (on a play that could possibly come down to inches to boot). That, and not running on 3rd and short which would have at least cost Indy their final time out.

Anyway, great game. Indy struggled for 3/4 of the game and still found a way to win. Lots of dropped balls and Manning mis-cues that likely won't happen the next time around.

[hanratty21]

Point out which of those comments you stand by, "come up with your own statements"-boy. We can go from there.

john stumpf, rob, jim - find the rest on your own...

p.s. We don't need to go anywhere. This is the same old M.O. from you over and over again. It's tired. Old...and...tired. Arguing for arguing's sake. Back to the high school debate team BS again.

Stats
Are
Being
Applied
Incorrectly.
Period.

None of those numbers take into account field position, situation, opponent, game momentum swing, the 12th man, time on the clock, a gassed defense having to play 'double time' due to the short field, etc.

[silverx2]

ratty, what are the odds you would give tom brady to pick up the 4th and 2?

[hanratty21]

In general, I wouldn't. I'd look at the situation. A hungry Colts team that is dying to get a hold of the ball, no timeouts to talk about the play, a team frustrated by a perceived bad spot on the 3rd down play, raving lunatic fans screaming at Brady trying to call coverage from the line...his odds diminish greatly with all of those factors.

At Foxboro, I'd probably (though hate to say it) give him well over 50%.

[FlashLackey]

john stumpf, rob, jim - find the rest on your own...

john stumpf - Provides no argument. Only the speculation that Belichick wouldn't go for it under different circumstances. I've already covered this earlier. He probably wouldn't go for it earlier in the game because earlier in the game, making a first down wouldn't guarantee a win. Dumb argument.

rob - The percentage used in the Advanced NFL formula was specifically for 2 yards to go. Not a one yard QB sneak. That's why the person who explains the math refers to his 4 part study of 4th down conversions.

jim - Doesn't understand statistics. If we isolated data collection down to only events that were similar in every conceivable aspect, there would be no such thing as a data set. His claim that other 4th and 2 conversions or drives starting from the 30 are not remotely similar is simply false. The ball needed to be moved 2 yards to convert, the exact same criteria for including that data in an average result. There are always exceptions. That's why we also can measure standard deviation or apply a modifier for some circumstance. You're welcome to identify what circumstance would have altered the result 9% from the average.

p.s. We don't need to go anywhere. This is the same old M.O. from you over and over again. It's tired. Old...and...tired. Arguing for arguing's sake. Back to the high school debate team BS again.

If I'm arguing for arguing's sake, for what sake are you arguing for?

I'm simply defending my point of view here. It's a subject that interests me.

If anything is high school about our patterns here, it's you not admitting when you're wrong and resorting to personal attacks.

None of those numbers take into account field position, situation, opponent, game momentum swing, the 12th man, time on the clock, a gassed defense having to play 'double time' due to the short field, etc.

First of all, yes they do. Most of the percentages involved are based on field positions and situations (down and yards to go). All of the statistics involve a lot of different opponents, momentums, 12th men, etc. That's what averages are. The middle point between lots of different circumstances surrounding a certain criteria.

Secondly, are you seriously trying to argue now that, when you stated that it was fantasy to believe that Belichick's decision was the statistically correct call that it was because you were factoring in the 12th man and all of these other nuances you list?

If the statistics, without nuances, support Belichick's decision, doesn't it really come down to a rather subjective call over how much exceptional circumstances change things? Elements that Belichick was probably in a better position to judge than you?

[hanratty21]

Secondly, are you seriously trying to argue now that, when you stated that it was fantasy to believe that Belichick's decision was the statistically correct call that it was because you were factoring in the 12th man and all of these other nuances you list?

Yes, I am. And succeeding brilliantly.

[FlashLackey]

Yes, I am. And succeeding brilliantly.

One step at a time. So, you are now acknowledging then that the statistics, without nuances, support Belichick's decision?

[gerbick]

I split the thread, curse me out later.

A thread within a thread is usually fine, it's the CL for ****'s sake, but I'm definitely in the mind that this deserved it's own thread.

Carry on...