Yeah. We just rehashed this again in the office. I think the final decision is a smoke screen for a series of bad decisions. They should have known they were in 4th down territory. They should have run the ball down the Colts throats a couple of times. Faulk should have run a 4-yard pattern. It was a freaking mess. (Don't forget the two turnovers in the endzone.)
I think Belichick had a bad game, but not because of the 4th down decision. On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Matt & Olga McSorley <[email protected]>wrote: > On the same page, check the post about third and short strategy. The > numbers say that, in general, running on third down is more effective than > passing on third down all the way up to five yards to go. So, again I say, > if it's third and 2 and you've decided you're in four-down territory, the > odds are much higher running the ball twice than throwing it. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Steve Ouellette <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Mon, November 16, 2009 2:40:45 PM > *Subject:* Re: Football Numbers > > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > PST 2009 --> > > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
