Colts vs Patriots.....Rivalry of the decade...Lets get it on

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Oh come on, that's ridiculous. They will have to use the timeout to stop the clock once you've converted. You then have a full set of downs with 2 minutes. You will be kneeling and the game will be over (40 seconds ticks off per play).

No the two minute warning is stopping the clock on first down so you will only get to run off 40 seconds if they use their timeouts. You need another first down.

frostie500

eagle eye wrote: »

No the two minute warning is stopping the clock on first down so you will only get to run off 40 seconds if they use their timeouts. You need another first down.

Did New England not take a time out before they made the fourth down call, then with no timeouts they couldn't challenge the spot for Faulk's catch and because it was outside the two minute warning the booth couldn't review it?

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

No the two minute warning is stopping the clock on first down so you will only get to run off 40 seconds if they use their timeouts. You need another first down.

You convert, two minute warning comes up. 2.00 left. Kneel, they call timeout. 1.55 left. Kneel, 1.15 left. Kneel, 0.35 left. Punt, Colts take possession with 0.25 left and 70 yards to go with no timeouts. Go into prevent, their chance of winning from there is something like 0 - 5%.

So yeah, you're right. Game wouldn't have ended on the next possession, but you've essentially won the times you convert.

Hynzie

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That isn't to say that he called a perfect game mind. While the 4th down call was correct, if he was going to go for it there then he needs to call a run on 3rd down to eat up another few seconds and hopefully make the 4th down a yard shorter. Yes, the Colts are going to be cheating on the run defensively, but they are going to be doing the same thing on 4th (even moreso). So just give yourself two shots to pound it in there

This is a good point. Not enough being made about the play calling imo. They should have run it on 3rd and 2 and on fourth down. Faulk had some nice runs in the game and I like my chances with him getting two attempts to get two yards. After the incompletion on 3rd down I understand them not wanting to run on 4th and 2 but why did they run a route so close to the sticks? The previous play Powers was sitting on that short route and nearly picked it so why not give yourself a margin for error and run a slightly deeper route? Im not saying they should have ran a corner route just something with a yard or two more depth.

LuckyLloyd

Hynzie wrote: »

This is a good point. Not enough being made about the play calling imo. They should have run it on 3rd and 2 and on fourth down. Faulk had some nice runs in the game and I like my chances with him getting two attempts to get two yards. After the incompletion on 3rd down I understand them not wanting to run on 4th and 2 but why did they run a route so close to the sticks? The previous play Powers was sitting on that short route and nearly picked it so why not give yourself a margin for error and run a slightly deeper route? Im not saying they should have ran a corner route just something with a yard or two more depth.

I haven't looked at the replay in enough detail, but Brady was under a lot of pressure to get the throw off, and it could have been a case that he just dumped it off to avoid the sack. There is no guarantee that he threw to the primary receiver / the receiver the play is designed to set free.

Chanandler Bong

Hynzie wrote: »

This is a good point. Not enough being made about the play calling imo. They should have run it on 3rd and 2 and on fourth down. Faulk had some nice runs in the game and I like my chances with him getting two attempts to get two yards. After the incompletion on 3rd down I understand them not wanting to run on 4th and 2 but why did they run a route so close to the sticks? The previous play Powers was sitting on that short route and nearly picked it so why not give yourself a margin for error and run a slightly deeper route? Im not saying they should have ran a corner route just something with a yard or two more depth.

I dont really like questioning playcalls too much because hindsight is of course 20-20, if they had done as youd suggested and went for say a 6-7 yard pass and the pass hadnt been completed, then you can be sure there would have been plenty people berating BB and saying he definitely should have went with a shorter and safer play to increase the chances of getting the first

At the end of the day, he took a gamble and it didnt pay off, I can see why he wouldnt want a situation where Peyton is driving to win the game (even from 60-70 yards out), and if the 4th had been made, it would have been hailed as a great call as it would have virtually closed out the game.

IMO the points the Endzone INT and fumble should cause greater regret than a questionable play call

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You convert, two minute warning comes up. 2.00 left. Kneel, they call timeout. 1.55 left. Kneel, 1.15 left. Kneel, 0.35 left. Punt, Colts take possession with 0.25 left and 70 yards to go with no timeouts. Go into prevent, their chance of winning from there is something like 0 - 5%.

So yeah, you're right. Game wouldn't have ended on the next possession, but you've essentially won the times you convert.

The problem is that I don't think they are using math to decide this. I mean if you are using math then part of the theory has to be to let them get an easy touchdown if you do turn it over and leave yourself time to get into field goal range from the kickoff.
They were 100% efficient from the 30 yard line so there is no point trying to stop them.
I mean you are basically saying when you go for it on 4th down that you like their chances of converting from a lot further out so why try and prevent a td from 30 yards out?

Hynzie

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I haven't looked at the replay in enough detail, but Brady was under a lot of pressure to get the throw off, and it could have been a case that he just dumped it off to avoid the sack. There is no guarantee that he threw to the primary receiver / the receiver the play is designed to set free.

This is true but I think i remember hearing BB after the game say they got the match up they wanted, I could be wrong though. Even still if Faulk was the check down guy I think he still should have given himself a little margin for error instead of running the route right at the first down.

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

The problem is that I don't think they are using math to decide this. I mean if you are using math then part of the theory has to be to let them get an easy touchdown if you do turn it over and leave yourself time to get into field goal range from the kickoff.
They were 100% efficient from the 30 yard line so there is no point trying to stop them.
I mean you are basically saying when you go for it on 4th down that you like their chances of converting from a lot further out so why try and prevent a td from 30 yards out?

NFL coaches (and college coaches) don't go for it anywhere near enough on 4th down. Over the past decade, Bellichek and Pete Carroll have been extremely aggressive with 4th down playcalling. No, I don't think he crunched the numbers right then, right there on the sideline. He went with his instinct. One of the big things that separates Bellichek from lessor coaches is the thorough nature of his preparation, the ability to sell his system to a succession of veteran players and make them work within it. I have little doubt that he crunches the percentages after games, analyses the plays he called, compares it to league and team specific averages and figures out what worked and what didn't for future reference. As such, all of those hours running these types of calculations allowed him to make the correct instinctive decision in the moment.

As for the last bit of your post, I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Primarily, above all else you're saying that you like your chances to end the game right there, that you feel you convert more than 55% of the time (league average). Then on the other side of the coin, it's a question of weighing up how much the net distance of a punt reduces Manning's expectations of leading a TD drive from a two minute drill against a defense performing poorly. For sure, Manning is less likely to score from ~65 yards than he is from 28, but it needs to be a whole lot less likely for you to ignore your own conversion rate from 2 yards out on offense - when you're 40% to hold from 28 yards out in anycase.

LuckyLloyd

Hynzie wrote: »

This is true but I think i remember hearing BB after the game say they got the match up they wanted, I could be wrong though. Even still if Faulk was the check down guy I think he still should have given himself a little margin for error instead of running the route right at the first down.

If he doesn't bobble the catch it's a 1st down (it may very well have actually been a 1st down anyway). Inches baby, inches.

Hynzie

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If he doesn't bobble the catch it's a 1st down (it may very well have actually been a 1st down anyway). Inches baby, inches.

Yup but if he had run a yard deeper it definatly would have been a first down:D

Ach, it's a recent rivalry and a passing phase.

It will never be a rivalry in the great sense, steeped in tradition and going back many years, the Packers Bears, Packers Vikings, Michigan Ohio State, Redskins Cowboys, even Bengals Browns, Raiders and...well almost every team!

It almost seems based on respect, which is no basis for a real rivalry. It must be based on hatred first.

Hazys

Another game in Indy and another game were the officals were poor where there decisions favour the home team. Dont get me wrong the game was the Pats to win despite the calls but it does leave a bitter taste in my mouth.


The PI call was extremely harsh at best, Butler had as much right to jump for that ball as the WR did and on 3rd and 10 it was a major call. A PI call going against the Pats in Indie...who would have thought it?

When Brady got hit from behind and fumbled, Freeney came in from the front and clocked him helmet to helmet...no flag!!! so much for Brady having his own set of rules.

The spot on the 4th down was poor at best according to the officals Faulk was a whole yard short...the tv replays showed its was ridiculously close. The media blamed Bill for burning his timeouts (one was Brady, one was Bill, both wasted tho) but if the officals were doing there job he shouldnt have had to challenge.



Plus' from the game is that the Pats are a better team than the Colts, Brady completed a couple of deep balls, defense played v well in the first 3Qs, Vollmer looks quality (hopefully Light can start at RT). Slowly but surely we are becoming to be a great team again, its early days in the season so hopefully we wont hit our peak till the playoffs.


On a final note, Fcuk the Media, Fcuk the haters who have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to Bill and are using this as a reason to jump all over him, even tho 4 weeks ago he was a genius for the same decision, just goes to show the stupdity thats out there...he is the greatest NFL head coach.

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

NFL coaches (and college coaches) don't go for it anywhere near enough on 4th down. Over the past decade, Bellichek and Pete Carroll have been extremely aggressive with 4th down playcalling. No, I don't think he crunched the numbers right then, right there on the sideline. He went with his instinct. One of the big things that separates Bellichek from lessor coaches is the thorough nature of his preparation, the ability to sell his system to a succession of veteran players and make them work within it. I have little doubt that he crunches the percentages after games, analyses the plays he called, compares it to league and team specific averages and figures out what worked and what didn't for future reference. As such, all of those hours running these types of calculations allowed him to make the correct instinctive decision in the moment.

As for the last bit of your post, I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Primarily, above all else you're saying that you like your chances to end the game right there, that you feel you convert more than 55% of the time (league average). Then on the other side of the coin, it's a question of weighing up how much the net distance of a punt reduces Manning's expectations of leading a TD drive from a two minute drill against a defense performing poorly. For sure, Manning is less likely to score from ~65 yards than he is from 28, but it needs to be a whole lot less likely for you to ignore your own conversion rate from 2 yards out on offense - when you're 40% to hold from 28 yards out in anycase.

Where are you getting this figure from?
The Colts are 75% certain to score a td from inside the 30 and thats over the season.
They were 100% successful in this game.
They are 45% to score from their own half on the season. 40% last night.

Just to add, the D was not performing that poorly, it was a terrible call from the official(pass interference call) that kept the Colts previous drive alive.

Chucky the tree

Hazys wrote: »

It was defly the right decision. Whether the Colts got the ball on the NE29 or the Colts 20, they had 2 mins, the 2 minute drill and 1 timeout, they were going to score. 2 minutes is a whole world of time to score.

When you have a 50/50 chance to win the game you take it.


What i dont like after reading Peter King's MMQB article, is him calling Bill's decision a bad decision when about 4 weeks ago when Bill decided to go for it on 4th and 1 against the Falcons in ur own half, he called it a great decision, the only difference is that we converted it...its still the same decision.



In Bill, I trust.

There's a massive difference between 4th and 1 and 4th and 2, it might seems like only a yard but 4th and 2 takes away a good few play opitions that could be run on 4th and 1, 4th and 2 even turns a run play into a big risk and you are nearly forced to throw it. I'm only guessing here, no stats for it or anything but a QB sneak is probably the most successful way of converting a 1 yard play which isn't possible on a 4th and 2. Thats before even taking into account of how long was left in the falcons game etc so I think it's perfectly plausable for Bill to be criticized when both scenarios are completely different. I mean giving up possession in your own half to Matt Ryan and the Falcons in completely different then doing it to the Colts and Manning. Also the pats should of just let Addai run into the endzone instead of tackling him at the 1 yard line.

LuckyLloyd

I'm just going to wrap up this conversation:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html

The 40% to hold was the US betting exchanges reaction to New England missing the 4th and 2. As a general rule of thumb, Vegas has a very good eye for this stuff.

tallaghtoutlaws

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Nail on the head! The reaction is largely results orientated nonsense. You make the decision to go for it / not go for it in advance of the result. If that decision was flawed, making the play anyway doesn't make up for it - and vice versa.

There are loads of analysts who will be decrying the decision when they would have been hailing it if the spot had been more reasonable. It's just not a logical position to hold.

Also, there is loads of overrating Manning and the Colts (as hard as that is to believe!! ) on message boards and in the media this morning. Again, US betting exchanges gave them a 60% chance of winning the game from the 28 yard line. A lot of the talk is working off the assumption that Manning bangs it in 90% of the time. That is just wrong, so wrong.

That article is rubbish. The score when the Pats went for it against the Falcons was 26-10. Huge difference than last night. Had we given up the ball then the Falcons had 2mins to bring down a 16 point ball game. Thats 2 TDs and 2 2pt conversions. The game was in the bag and even I thought Bill was mad going for it considering the game was practically over.

tallaghtoutlaws

Deleted User wrote: »

Ach, it's a recent rivalry and a passing phase.

It will never be a rivalry in the great sense, steeped in tradition and going back many years, the Packers Bears, Packers Vikings, Michigan Ohio State, Redskins Cowboys, even Bengals Browns, Raiders and...well almost every team!

It almost seems based on respect, which is no basis for a real rivalry. It must be based on hatred first.

We all know that but Rivalries even great ones were built somewhere. To write it off because its not a historical rivalry is laughable to be honest. Pats fans see it is a now hatred type rivalry, Colts fans now see it as a new hatred type rivalry, The two teams had somewhat successful last 10 years and been at the top of the AFC for alot of it. 20 years down the line I guarantee it will still be a rivalry and do you think fans will be say "Ach, its recent rivalry"?

themont85

It was a bad call by BB end off. Going for it on 4th down should only be done in the oppoments half or if you are desperate for points. BB has being getting very aggresive on 4th downs in the past few years, Giants superbowl remember he passed up a Field Goal oppertunity. The Pats offence has come on leaps and bounds (Randy Moss is the key to that imo) and its great and all that BB has faith in them. But the Pats are built on being the ultimate 'team', personally I think BB has shown a lack of confidence in his defence and set them up as lame ducks by missing the conversion. The reason the Pats won so many Superbowls is because they were the most rounded team, they have put to much faith in an admitably destructive offence recently, kind of like the Colts over reliance on Peyton.

Hazys

Chucky the tree wrote: »

There's a massive difference between 4th and 1 and 4th and 2, it might seems like only a yard but 4th and 2 takes away a good few play opitions that could be run on 4th and 1, 4th and 2 even turns a run play into a big risk and you are nearly forced to throw it. I'm only guessing here, no stats for it or anything but a QB sneak is probably the most successful way of converting a 1 yard play which isn't possible on a 4th and 2. Thats before even taking into account of how long was left in the falcons game etc so I think it's perfectly plausable for Bill to be criticized when both scenarios are completely different. I mean giving up possession in your own half to Matt Ryan and the Falcons in completely different then doing it to the Colts and Manning. Also the pats should of just let Addai run into the endzone instead of tackling him at the 1 yard line.

4th & 1 and 4th & 2, yes there is a difference with slightly lower odds of completing it but c'mon its practically the same decision. Bill was also going to close out the Dolphins game last week by going for it instead of kicking the FG but a penalty forced his hand.

Bill's decision was and will always will be on 4th and short leave it in the hands of Tom Brady and his offense to win the game, win the game by being aggresive not conservative, and i agree with him

Also they shouldnt have let the Colts just run it in, it was a totally different situation to the Jags V Jets game as the Jags only needed a FG to win not a TD, the Pats only had 2 more plays to stop the Colts in the endzone it was possible, see Will McGinest's tackle on Edrginn James on 4th and goal on the NE 1yrd line in 2003 with no time left. (see 4:34)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvtgoKWsdk8

tallaghtoutlaws

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Pats fans see it is a now hatred type rivalry

I guess you have a point.

And when you see the numbers that used to go to Pats games, a lot of them clearly will only have recent memories too and have only joined up during the successful era, so recently formed rivalries will mean that much more to them.

tallaghtoutlaws

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess you have a point.

And when you see the numbers that used to go to Pats games, a lot of them clearly will only have recent memories too and have only joined up during the successful era, so recently formed rivalries will mean that much more to them.

Yup most of us old dogs know of our true rivalries but the Colts rivalry is starting to form. Give it 10 years and it will be a fully fledged old skool rivalry.

Hazys

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess you have a point.

And when you see the numbers that used to go to Pats games, a lot of them clearly will only have recent memories too and have only joined up during the successful era, so recently formed rivalries will mean that much more to them.

You obviously dont know what you are talking about and bringing up BS about bandwagons, Pats fans have always and will always hate the Jets more than the Colts...which is our main rivalry.

tallaghtoutlaws

Hazys wrote: »

You obviously dont know what you are talking about and bringing up BS about bandwagons, Pats fans have always and will always hate the Jets more than the Colts...which is our main rivalry.

I dont think he was getting at anything other than a lot of new Pats fans see the Colts rivalry as big as the Jets when we both know it isn't and it never will be. Our pure hatred for the Jets doesn't extent to the Colts just yet.

Hazys

Hazys wrote: »

You obviously dont know what you are talking about and bringing up BS about bandwagons

Just making the point that attendances at Patriots games were low before their recent success. Sure they had games in front of crowds of just over 20,000 at games in Foxboro. If you chose to call it a bandwagon, well that's your word not mine. As for the Jets rivalry, at least you know about it, it appears that some here think the Colts are your rivals.

frostie500

Hazys wrote: »

Bill's decision was and will always will be on 4th and short leave it in the hands of Tom Brady and his offense to win the game, win the game by being aggresive not conservative, and i agree with him

Would you still agree with him if he made that call an the AFC Championship game?

For me by putting the ball in the offences hands he has basically told his defence "I've no confidence in you at all and i dont think you can stop Manning going 70 yards." How can that be good long term for the Pats this year?

LuckyLloyd

themont85 wrote: »

It was a bad call by BB end of. Going for it on 4th down should only be done in the oppoments half or if you are desperate for points. BB has being getting very aggresive on 4th downs in the past few years, Giants superbowl remember he passed up a Field Goal oppertunity. The Pats offence has come on leaps and bounds (Randy Moss is the key to that imo) and its great and all that BB has faith in them. But the Pats are built on being the ultimate 'team', personally I think BB has shown a lack of confidence in his defence and set them up as lame ducks by missing the conversion. The reason the Pats won so many Superbowls is because they were the most rounded team, they have put to much faith in an admitably destructive offence recently, kind of like the Colts over reliance on Peyton.

lol

eagle eye

The hatred for the Jets was never as bad either until 12 or so years ago. When the tuna left us to join them it got way more serious. And then Curtis Martin joined them as well. We got the better of that one though and it fueled the fire even more when Belichick quit, remember that he got up on the podium and said 'I resign as head coach of the New York Jets' on his first day.

Hazys

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

I dont think he was getting at anything other than a lot of new Pats fans see the Colts rivalry as big as the Jets when we both know it isn't and it never will be. Our pure hatred for the Jets doesn't extent to the Colts just yet.

Even new fans (including myself who only became a fan after watching my first Superbowl in 2001) would hate the Jets over the Colts, as most automatically hate New York from birth and the whole Mangini/SpyGate affair was in recent years, the fact that they are in the same divison and play twice a year.

Man i hate the Jets, I was in NYC the weekend before last, the amount of Yankee caps and Jets jerseys would make you throwup...

Chucky the tree

Hazys wrote: »

Also they shouldnt have let the Colts just run it in, it was a totally different situation to the Jags V Jets game as the Jags only needed a FG to win not a TD, the Pats only had 2 more plays to stop the Colts in the endzone it was possible, see Will McGinest's tackle on Edrginn James on 4th and goal on the NE 1yrd line in 2003 with no time left. (see 4:34)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvtgoKWsdk8

I meant Addais first run which went 13 yards that made it 1st and goal on the 1 yard yard line, if your going for broke on 4th and 2 because you don't think your D will stop Panning from 70 yards why suddenly think they can stop him from the 1 yard line? If he ran in the Pats would of had over 1:20 still left on the clock.

Wolves

Agree that going for it on 4th down is the right call here. They will convert this well over 50% of the time and when they don't as lloyd said they still have somewhere around 40% chance to win.

What surprises me is that when colts get to the 1 yard line there is still over 1 min on the clock. The pats allow the clock to run then stop them on 1st down and eventually leave only 13 secs on the clock.

Weighing things up I would have thought using their timeout here and allowing the colts to score on 1st down giving Brady over 1 min to drive down for a field goal is a better percentage play in this spot.

frostie500

Wolves wrote: »

Weighing things up I would have thought using their timeout here and allowing the colts to score on 1st down giving Brady over 1 min to drive down for a field goal is a better percentage play in this spot.

They had no timeouts left

LuckyLloyd

Wolves wrote: »

What surprises me is that when colts get to the 1 yard line there is still over 1 min on the clock. The pats allow the clock to run then stop them on 1st down and eventually leave only 13 secs on the clock.

Weighing things up I would have thought using their timeout here and allowing the colts to score on 1st down giving Brady over 1 min to drive down for a field goal is a better percentage play in this spot.

Completely agree. There was a definite mistake in the way they defended once the Colts got down to the line. There might even be an argument for letting them score when they got that close.

Wolves

frostie500 wrote: »

They had no timeouts left

Ok i didn't realise that. It was late. I thought they had 1 left.

If anything BB should be getting stick over wasting the timeouts and not over the 4th down call.

Hazys

Deleted User wrote: »

Just making the point that attendances at Patriots games were low before their recent success. Sure they had games in front of crowds of just over 20,000 at games in Foxboro. If you chose to call it a bandwagon, well that's your word not mine. As for the Jets rivalry, at least you know about it, it appears that some here think the Colts are your rivals.

But also add in the fact Bob Kraft built a new stadium, made it easier to get to games, advertised better, more people were going to come anyway not matter the added sucess. The old stadium was a dive and had a very drunken rowdy atomsphere which turned families away from games

To say the main reason that the stadium is full every game now and there is a 10 year waiting list for season tickets is down purely to bandwagon supports is very narrow minded. Of course success will bring people tru the turnstiles but the Patriots were always very strongly supported in Boston & New England area, of course theyll never be the main team in the area but they are not one of most highly profitable and supported teams in the league because they won the Superbowl in 2001. That win didnt turn them from 20,000 a week to 68,000 a week overnight.


Maybe Pats fans in Ireland think the Colts rivalry is bigger than the Jets, but you are seriously underestimating how much Boston and New England people hate New York!!! I was at a Celtics game during the World Series and a "Yankees Suck!" chant broke out in the middle of the game.

Hazys

frostie500 wrote: »

Would you still agree with him if he made that call an the AFC Championship game?

For me by putting the ball in the offences hands he has basically told his defence "I've no confidence in you at all and i dont think you can stop Manning going 70 yards." How can that be good long term for the Pats this year?

Would you still disagree with the decision if the Pats had converted the 4th and 2?

Chucky the tree

While the Pats Colts rivalary is big it's also built on a lot of mutual respect as well I think. There never seems to be any major incidents during the game and they are pretty played in great spirit. The Jets rivalary is far wrose, not only are they rivals but Jets getting Mangiani as HC which really pissed Bill off, then spygate schnanigans, lol epic. I even remember the Matt Light(think it was him anyway, could of been the TE though) and channing crowder getting ejected for fight in the dolphins match. I just could never see something like that happen in a Colts Pats game as the rivalary is no where near that level.

tallaghtoutlaws

Hazys wrote: »

Maybe Pats fans in Ireland think the Colts rivalry is bigger than the Jets, but you are seriously underestimating how much Boston and New England people hate New York!!! I was at a Celtics game during the World Series and a "Yankees Suck!" chant broke out in the middle of the game.

See I thought this also the whole European and Irish thing not really knowing who our biggest rivals are but any team from New York especially the Jets and Yankees in sports are the standout rivals. Boston and New England folk hate anything NY. The Jets will always be top of our hatred list and as Eagle Eye said the Fish are on there also. But the Steelers and now Colts will be on that list and the Giants got thrown on there. Just sent a message to my girlfriend and she just text me back saying **** NY and the Jets. She is die hard Patriots and from MA.:D

tallaghtoutlaws

Hazys wrote: »

Would you still disagree with the decision if the Pats had converted the 4th and 2?

As someone who coaches and plays the game I would have said yes. But would have commended to him for his gutsy call. As I do for last night but it still wouldn't change my opinion that it was stupid and the wrong decision.

Hazys

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I meant Addais first run which went 13 yards that made it 1st and goal on the 1 yard yard line, if your going for broke on 4th and 2 because you don't think your D will stop Panning from 70 yards why suddenly think they can stop him from the 1 yard line? If he ran in the Pats would of had over 1:20 still left on the clock.

TBH it may have been a bright move but i dont like to lay down and die and let a team score.

If you thought it showed no confidence in the defense to go for it on 4th and 2, it would have certainly showed no confidence in them to tell them to give up trying while they are on the pitch.

Also i dont think it was a lack of confidence in the defence as much as it was confidence in Tom Brady. Sure Bill did the exact same thing against the Dolphins the week before, he choose to leave his offense out on the field on 4th and Inches to close the game rather than take a 35yrd FG with a Pro Bowl kicker to go 10pts ahead.

frostie500

Hazys wrote: »

Would you still disagree with the decision if the Pats had converted the 4th and 2?

Yeah I would, football is a percentage game and to make a call that gives Peyton Manning the chance to get the ball from inside your own 40 is a bad call in the last two minutes of a game. The call is bad regardless of the outcome in my view. If they convert the chance as Tallaght says:

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

But would have commended to him for his gutsy call. As I do for last night but it still wouldn't change my opinion that it was stupid and the wrong decision.

To put it another way: if Jim Zorn or Eric Mangini makes the call to go for it on fourth and 1 or 2 do you think he's making the right call? I'd be very suprised, shocked even if anyone says that they think that call is right if its anyone other then Bellichek and Brady. How many times did Bill Walsh go for it in a similer situation with Montona or Young with a group of recievers of the same or greater caliber, or how many times was John Elway or Dan Marino asked to go for it in a similer situation?

Hazys

Im just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think it was the right decision and i think if they had converted, 90% of people who are currently disagreeing would have said it was the right decision because the Pats would have won the game.

If i ever end up playing one of ye guys in Madden online know that I'm going for it :P

frostie500

Hazys wrote: »

Im just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think it was the right decision and i think if they had converted, 90% of people who are currently disagreeing would have said it was the right decision because the Pats would have won the game.

If i ever end up playing one of ye guys in Madden online know that I'm going for it :P

If i had Brady, Moss, Welker and Faulk in Madden I'd be going for it too!

ArmCandyBaby

I thought it was funny reading Peter King's column today. He too was absolutely against the call and yet he uses these numbers:

1) The Pats will convert 60-65% of the time.
2) It they punt Peyton will score on a long drive 35% of the time (which he says some might consider to be a bit on the low side)

Now if we say that the pats win 100% of the time they convert, by choosing to go for it on 4-2 the are 65% likely to win the game there and then, and the also have a reasonable chance of stopping them from scoring from the 28 or wherever it was. If the chose to punt, they have a 35% chance of losing ie. a 65% chance of winning. So he inadvertently made the point that by going for it on 4th down, they were actually more likely to win by percentage of the time they turn it over but keep them out of the end zone on the short field. Maybe the 100% win on conversion is a bit generous (and using the upper-bound of his estimate) but its certainly more likely than the Colts scoring from the 28.

Hmmmmm...

I heard someone say that if they planned on going for it on 4th down, they should have called a running play on 3rd. That was the bad call.

frostie500

ArmCandyBaby wrote: »

I thought it was funny reading Peter King's column today. He too was absolutely against the call and yet he uses these numbers:

1) The Pats will convert 60-65% of the time.
2) It they punt Peyton will score on a long drive 35% of the time (which he says some might consider to be a bit on the low side)

Now if we say that the pats win 100% of the time they convert, by choosing to go for it on 4-2 the are 65% likely to win the game there and then, and the also have a reasonable chance of stopping them from scoring from the 28 or wherever it was. If the chose to punt, they have a 35% chance of losing ie. a 65% chance of winning. So he inadvertently made the point that by going for it on 4th down, they were actually more likely to win by percentage of the time they turn it over but keep them out of the end zone on the short field. Maybe the 100% win on conversion is a bit generous (and using the upper-bound of his estimate) but its certainly more likely than the Colts scoring from the 28.

yeah but the 35% for Manning is dependant on Manning having to move 70 yards not 30 yards. I'd imagine his stats would be different with Manning going from the 30

ArmCandyBaby

frostie500 wrote: »

yeah but the 35% for Manning is dependant on Manning having to move 70 yards not 30 yards. I'd imagine his stats would be different with Manning going from the 30

I know that but if the probability of the Pats winning it if they convert > the probability of the Colts scoring if they don't, then using the percentages he gives, they were right to go for it.

Hazys

ArmCandyBaby wrote: »

I thought it was funny reading Peter King's column today. He too was absolutely against the call and yet he uses these numbers:

1) The Pats will convert 60-65% of the time.
2) It they punt Peyton will score on a long drive 35% of the time (which he says some might consider to be a bit on the low side)

Now if we say that the pats win 100% of the time they convert, by choosing to go for it on 4-2 the are 65% likely to win the game there and then, and the also have a reasonable chance of stopping them from scoring from the 28 or wherever it was. If the chose to punt, they have a 35% chance of losing ie. a 65% chance of winning. So he inadvertently made the point that by going for it on 4th down, they were actually more likely to win by percentage of the time they turn it over but keep them out of the end zone on the short field. Maybe the 100% win on conversion is a bit generous (and using the upper-bound of his estimate) but its certainly more likely than the Colts scoring from the 28.

Hmmmmm...

I heard someone say that if they planned on going for it on 4th down, they should have called a running play on 3rd. That was the bad call.

That was a mistake but i think it holds as evidence that Bill unfortunitly wasnt thinking about going for it on 4th down at that stage. A run would have gained maybe a yard and burned some time. If he knew he was going to go for it on 4th down before he called the 3rd down play, we would have been in a much better position to convert it.

Hazys

frostie500 wrote: »

yeah but the 35% for Manning is dependant on Manning having to move 70 yards not 30 yards. I'd imagine his stats would be different with Manning going from the 30

Here are the stats with Peyton starting on his own 34.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html

78% chance of winning going for it on 4th down and a 70% chance of winning if he punted.

These figures are based on league averages, but the closeness of the two teams would even it out a bit. Again a lot of factors are not considered but its not a bad sample case to show that the odds were greater to go for it.

frostie500

Hazys wrote: »

Here are the stats with Peyton starting on his own 34.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html

78% chance of winning going for it on 4th down and a 70% chance of winning if he punted.

These figures are based on league averages, but the closeness of the two teams would even it out a bit. Again a lot of factors are not considered but its not a bad sample case to show that the odds were greater to go for it.

But do you not think that taking the chance of something going wrong on the play-a lineman slips, someone messes their protection, the ball gets tipped at the line of scrimmage etc. that going for it is the wrong move? With the game in hand as it was for the Pats with two mins left you can't take the chance of giving a surefire Hall of Famer like Manning the ball at the 28. As I said earlier if it was the Browns or the Skins would you make the point the call was the right one?

LuckyLloyd

Hazys wrote: »

Here are the stats with Peyton starting on his own 34.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html

78% chance of winning going for it on 4th down and a 70% chance of winning if he punted.

These figures are based on league averages, but the closeness of the two teams would even it out a bit. Again a lot of factors are not considered but its not a bad sample case to show that the odds were greater to go for it.

The final thing worth noting is that - even if you change the league average figures to numbers that make the call bad - you can't reasonably play around with the stats to make the play call terrible. The reaction in the media is that it was a horrendous, unbelievably stupid, blah, blah decision. You can't run the numbers in such a way that the decision becomes an error of a magnitude in line with the uproar in the media over it. Some of these guys on ESPN, etc are so out of touch with logic it's scary.