Best summary I've read today by anyone. Good job Matt
________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt & Olga McSorley Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 1:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Football Numbers After the Manning interception midway through the fourth, they abandoned the aggression that had given them the lead and tried to run out the clock. They ran a very timid drive than ended in a field goal -- a 13-point lead with 4 minutes to go. That's not enough of a lead against Peyton Manning. They had to keep up the aggression. Where was the deep ball that had torched the Colts in the first half? Go for the quick score, take a 17-point lead, and even Peyton Manning can't come back from that in 6 or 7 minutes. Then they went prevent on the ensuing drive and Manning made it look too easy. And when they got the ball back, they burned a time-out, and went with conservative play calls on first through third downs (not once did they throw to a receiver beyond the first-down marker). So, after 7 minutes of conservative ball, THEN, ON FOURTH DOWN, they decided to get aggressive? That's poor coaching and poor game management. And that's where they usually excel. And that disturbs me. ________________________________ From: Ray Salemi <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 1:17:45 PM Subject: Re: Football Numbers Ahh, well there's the rub. I think it was higher than 30%. I agree with Matt's comment though. If you are in 4-down territory then play for 4-downs and run it twice. There was no planning. On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Steve Gendron <[email protected]> wrote: OK, Since we're talking about imaginary numbers.... I think your estimate is a little on the low side, but for the sake of argument I will give it to you. I think the Colts have a less than 30% chance of scoring with no time outs if we kick it away. Any other coach in the league would be in danger of being fired today after that call. ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Salemi Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 11:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Football Numbers I'm saying that their chances of scoring from the 30 with 2 minutes to go is 50% and the chances of stopping the Pats was 60%. So the odds of the Colts winning was 30%. I'm OK with that. Ray On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Steve Gendron <[email protected]> wrote: You guys are really drinking the Belichek Kool-aid. Are you really telling me that the chances of Manning scoring from the Colts 30 with no time outs are equal to that of them scoring on the Pats 30 under the same conditions? No matter how you slice it, it was a bad call. It cost the Patriots home field advantage in the playoffs, which can be the difference in a Superbowl drive. ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Salemi Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Football Numbers Steve O has cleverly summed up my numbers approach It seems to make sense that the Patriots had a much better chance of making two yards than they had of stopping the Colts. I bow to his explanatory powers! -- Author of "Leading After a Layoff: Reignite Your Team's Productivity in Just 12 Weeks" www.leadingafteralayoff.com <http://www.leadingafteralayoff.com/> -- Author of "Leading After a Layoff: Reignite Your Team's Productivity in Just 12 Weeks" www.leadingafteralayoff.com <http://www.leadingafteralayoff.com/> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Red Sox Citizens" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
