I bet this guy would agree with me and Ray.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-1.html


On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Steve Gendron <[email protected]> wrote:

>  I agree with all the commentary about why the Pats never should have been
> in that position to begin with (poor time management, sketchy play calling,
> questionable penalty calls, etc.).  However, I think Belichek's call was
> just ridiculous.  Steve correctly points out that Manning had moved the team
> down the field on the previous drive (even that Pass Interference aided
> drive took 1:49), however the defense had stopped the Colts several times
> prior to that.  They forced them to punt 8 times in the game (I think that
> was a record) and had 2 INTs.  It is much tougher to score in 2 minutes from
> your own 30 than your opponents 30 - I don't think that is up for debate.
> You have simply GOT to give your defense a chance to keep the Colts from
> gaining ~70 yards on a drive in the final two minutes with one timeout (I
> stand corrected) left.  It was just a bad call, and in an honest moment I
> think even BB would admit it.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Steve Ouellette
> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 1:17 PM
>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: Football Numbers
>
> First, they still had one timeout, plus the two minute warning. And second,
> you must have missed the previous drive where they went through the Patriots
> like a hot knife through butter (albeit helped by a bogus 30-yard pass
> interference call) in less than two minutes, using no timeouts.
>
> Steve O
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to