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

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.

tallaghtoutlaws

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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.

Things like this are always going to be a difference of opinion. Always. You can throw all the numbers at it from both sides of the argument but neither side will be right or wrong. Some coaches will make a decision and go for it and some wont. As I said already in this thread I respect that BB has the balls to go for it but I think his call was madness. But that is my view of it and to be honest like me there are others who will never change their view and like this thread it is one of those moments.

I think we can all agree to disagree. Oh and as for the media of course they will make a spectacle out of it as it will keep the flames burning for a few days and gives them something to talk about.

fisgon

DonkeyPokerTour wrote: »

Fook blaming bill, Fook blaming the ref's

Enjoy the game for what it was, Over 700 passing yards, Over 200 yards Rushing, 9 TD's, 2 FG. Simply amazing.

A 24point unanswered streek, a comeback from 17points down, A pick in the end zone, a fumble in the endzone. Amazing Amazing Amazing.

Absolutely agree with this. I've only just finished watching this as I had it recorded. I'm a Colts fan so maybe this colours things, but does this rank among that games of the decade? I've only seriously been into the NFL for the last 18 months after intermittently following it, but let's celebrate the sheer quality of this matchup, the skill, the heart, the tension, the comeback, the brilliance of the two quarterbacks and Wayne and Moss, the bravery of Belichick to go for it on 4th down (that took balls, whatever the outcome), the atmosphere, the controversy. This is why we watch the NFL. Wow.

mdwexford

Interesting thread.

Dodge

ArmCandyBaby wrote: »

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)

But what are the chances of the Pats getting the 2 ards v a solid defence like the Colts, or the odds on Peyton driving down against a defence like the Pats

The stats prove nothing.

ArmCandyBaby

Dodge wrote: »

But what are the chances of the Pats getting the 2 ards v a solid defence like the Colts, or the odds on Peyton driving down against a defence like the Pats

The stats prove nothing.

The point of those stats was that they were the estimates that Peter King chose to argue his point but they do the exact opposite, which I thought was funny! I'm sure he'll write about this in his column tomorrow.

If you want numbers related specifically to the Pats and Colts, here's another article:

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/zeus-computer-program-supports-belichicks-fourth-down-bid/

Or if you want to stick in your own figures:

http://belichick-decision.heroku.com/

The verdicts are pretty good in the second one!

tallaghtoutlaws

Funny thing about all of this. It is now being over played. Had this been any other coach in the NFL the type of analysis going on wouldn't be happening and it would most likely just be written off as a bad decision. Don't get me wrong I love BB but at this point this has gone beyond common sense with the breakdowns of stats and what ifs. Neither side is being bolstered to be honest. All the stats in the world are not going to make up for the decision whether he made it or not.

Even talking to a couple of coach buddies of mine in the US and they are all divided also as to what they would have done and if BB was right. Its a matter of opinion really and what BB believed was the best situation on the night. He went for it and failed. The right or wrong will always be a matter of opinion.

LuckyLloyd

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Funny thing about all of this. It is now being over played. Had this been any other coach in the NFL the type of analysis going on wouldn't be happening and it would most likely just be written off as a bad decision. Don't get me wrong I love BB but at this point this has gone beyond common sense with the breakdowns of stats and what ifs. Neither side is being bolstered to be honest. All the stats in the world are not going to make up for the decision whether he made it or not.

Even talking to a couple of coach buddies of mine in the US and they are all divided also as to what they would have done and if BB was right. Its a matter of opinion really and what BB believed was the best situation on the night. He went for it and failed. The right or wrong will always be a matter of opinion.

Couldn't disagree more. So long as the decision came in a barn burner on Primetime TV it would be as hotly debated. Infact, if the coach was much maligned, the conversation might be more furious (the haters would be frothing at the mouth all the more; the defenders having more ammunition for their "those who hate it are being emotional rather than rational" hypotheses).

eagle eye

The difference here though is that the opinion is split among New England fans and all Patriot fans love Bill Belichick.
Some of us disagree with his decision. The guy is not infallable although he is as close at it gets to that in football.:)
Two things, Chris Hanson's average punt from deep in our own half last night was 53 yards. He was kicking from about the 20 so Indy would be starting on their own 27 on average.

Here is Indy's drive chart stats from last night.

Ind 23 Punt
Ind 10 TD
Ind 20 Punt
Ind 20 punt
Ind 24 punt
Ind 20 TD
Ind 25 Punt
Ind 24 punt
Ind 14 Int
Ind 21 TD
Ind 18 Int
Ind 21 TD
NE 29 TD

Indy chance of scoring when starting drive on their side of the field -- 33% (4/12)
Indy chance of interception when starting drive on their side of the field --16.7% (2/12)
Indy chance of scoring from inside NE 30 -- 100% (3/3)

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

The difference here though is that the opinion is split among New England fans and all Patriot fans love Bill Belichick.
Some of us disagree with his decision. The guy is not infallable although he is as close at it gets to that in football.:)
Two things, Chris Hanson's average punt from deep in our own half last night was 53 yards. He was kicking from about the 20 so Indy would be starting on their own 27 on average.

Here is Indy's drive chart stats from last night.

Ind 23 Punt
Ind 10 TD
Ind 20 Punt
Ind 20 punt
Ind 24 punt
Ind 20 TD
Ind 25 Punt
Ind 24 punt
Ind 14 Int
Ind 21 TD
Ind 18 Int
Ind 21 TD
NE 29 TD

Indy chance of scoring when starting drive on their side of the field -- 33% (4/12)
Indy chance of interception when starting drive on their side of the field --16.7% (2/12)
Indy chance of scoring from inside NE 30 -- 100% (3/3)

You realise that doesn't mean their expectation was anywhere near 100% to score when they got the ball on the 28, right?

davyjose

Hazys wrote: »

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.

Ah man, cop on will you. nothing stinks worse than a bad loser.

No Colts fan came on here and rubbed it in. We feel lucky to have won a game that either of two of the League's best could have won. Bad calls happen - you guys have had more than a number go in your favour in the past.

Hazys

davyjose wrote: »

Ah man, cop on will you. nothing stinks worse than a bad loser.

No Colts fan came on here and rubbed it in. We feel lucky to have won a game that either of two of the League's best could have won. Bad calls happen - you guys have had more than a number go in your favour in the past.

I never took anything away from the Colts and their victory, i only talked from a Pats Fan's persective. Just because i gave out about 3 bad officating decisions even after i said it didnt effect our ability to win the game, i felt we had honest gripes with these calls. Am i not allowed to critize the officals because my team lost? or if you are on the losing side and you critize the officals you are instantly a sore loser?

Especially after all the BS for the past couple of weeks about Tom Brady having is own rules, he gets smacked helmet to helmet and no flag. Am i not entitled to bring it up?

No Colts fan rubbed it in...ya i know. I didnt attack the Colts or say ye didnt deserve it. I might not extend the courtesy to congratulate ye but i have accepted we lost the game. So leave it out.

As a Pats fan there are a lot of positives from the game. Yes i think we are a better team than the Colts, we lost away from home to ye by 1pt in a game that was ours to win and we are only starting to play to our full potential, not to mention we have a lot of good players to come back fully from injury in the next month or so.

EDIT: Apologies davyjose i probably wasnt very clear in my orginal post! Cant wait to meet ye guys again in Janurary!

frostie500

Hazys wrote: »

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.

davyjose wrote: »

Ah man, cop on will you. nothing stinks worse than a bad loser.

Hazys wrote: »

I never took anything away from the Colts and their victory, i only talked from a Pats Fan's persective. Just because i gave out about 3 bad officating decisions even after i said it didnt effect our ability to win the game, i felt we had honest gripes with these calls. Am i not allowed to critize the officals because my team lost? or if you are on the losing side and you critize the officals you are instantly a sore loser?

You can criticise officals, we all do, but the **** the haters bit does sound to be a bit sore to be honest, as well as statement about stupidity for questioning people who disagree with you over the call made by Bellichek doesnt sit too well. So I'd say that Davy was more using them as examples rather then you giving out about officials

Hazys

frostie500 wrote: »

You can criticise officals, we all do, but the **** the haters bit does sound to be a bit sore to be honest, as well as statement about stupidity for questioning people who disagree with you over the call made by Bellichek doesnt sit too well. So I'd say that Davy was more using them as examples rather then you giving out about officials

Fcuk the Haters, was a bit much all right, lol, but i wasnt refering to anybody on this forum, the officals or Colts fans. It was directed at people in the media mostly using Bill's decision as a reason to crucify him and not debate whether it was a good call or not, that pissed me off and i wasnt refering to the game result as such. Even local sports radio here in NE have taken it to crucify Bill.

What really ticked me off was this comment from Peter King who always seemed to have a chip on his should when it comes to Bill Belichick "All in all, I hated the call. It smacked of I'm-smarter-than-they-are hubris. Let Manning, with the weight of the world on his shoulders and no timeouts under his belt, drive 72 yards in two minutes, with his mistake-prone (on this night) young receivers and the clock working against him. Sure he could do it. But let him earn it. This felt too cheap. It was too cheap. Belichick's too smart to have something so Grady-Littlish on his career resume, but there it is, and it can never be erased".

He even gets called out by a fellow SI writer today for his stupid argument where his stats actually argue against the point he was making. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/11/16/belichick/index.html

I think Bill from what i've read in his interviews is unaffected by the critizism and will continue to think logically and not emotionally and do what is right for the team. The media were trying to say it was an arrogant call to show off his genius and that he was holyier than tho but there is a lot of evidence to show it was the correct call.

I still stand by it was a good decision and looking at the situation logically it made sense and if people look at the odds of winning the game in that situation, you may disagree with it but you cant call it a ridiculous call.

LuckyLloyd

frostie500

Hazys wrote: »

Fcuk the Haters, was a bit much all right, lol, but i wasnt refering to anybody on this forum, the officals or Colts fans. It was directed at people in the media

Fair enough

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You realise that doesn't mean their expectation was anywhere near 100% to score when they got the ball on the 28, right?

Based on their rate of success in the game before that play, what other figure could you assign to them?
They had 3 attempts inside our 30 and scored a td on all of them.

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

Based on their rate of success in the game before that play, what other figure could you assign to them?
They had 3 attempts inside our 30 and scored a td on all of them.

lol sample size. I would assign them something a fair bit above league average, but closer to league average than 100%.

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

lol sample size. I would assign them something a fair bit above league average, but closer to league average than 100%.

But there is the crux of the matter, there is never a sample size large enough to make these calculations with any accuracy.

You cannot take the league average as you are dealing with an elite team.
You only have at most 8 games previous opponents to go on.

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

But there is the crux of the matter, there is never a sample size large enough to make these calculations with any accuracy.

You cannot take the league average as you are dealing with an elite team.
You only have at most 8 games previous opponents to go on.

You can go and combine league averages over the last decade. League average stats in the NFL develop very slowly, there would not be a massive difference in the league average for this situation in 2009 compared to the league average figure for this situation in 1999 (there would be a difference, it's just that they don't bounce around from year to year). The Colts will be ahead of the figure, but never to such an astounding extent. Even if they were consistently one standard deviation above the mean it would be extremely impressive.

Arthur Daley

Nice to win against the Patriots and keep the run going, but I'd still give that up to see the Colts deliver in January, rather than excel in the regular season, and get dumped out cheaply in the playoffs by Steelers/Patriots/Chargers.......