Statistical Analysis Explaining Why Belicheck Was Right

Talk about the AFC, NFC, the NFL Draft, College Football... anything football that has no Washington Football Team relevance.
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

jeremyroyce wrote:I'm sorry I disagree. The Pats burned two timeouts on that drive and should have punted that ball. It would have been different if the Pats were maybe at midfield or a little in Colts territory. But the fact is you are at your 30.

So suppose the Pats punt as you propose and say Manning gets it at the Colt 40. He needs to go 60, the hardest are the second thirty. He did the second thirty. So what you propose is to give up the chance for the Pats and their HOF bound QB to make a 4th and 2 (they did) in exchange for the Colts HOF bound QB having to go the 30 easy yards, he still has to go the 30 hard ones. And you consider that logical based on what? The ONLY reason anyone who's logical would not go for it in that case is the fear they will be criticized because there is no possible way a logical person would take that trade. And fear is not how you win Super Bowls. Ask Coughlin who went for it in a notorious meaningless game against the Pats where it wasn't logical and I called him stupid for it, which I had to retract because while he wasn't logical he wasn't stupid either. Though it made RiC's day, he still brings it up. :)
Last edited by KazooSkinsFan on Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

Irn-Bru wrote:Obviously. But that doesn't mean I think you can say "with 4th and 7 my odds decrease to 41%" with much confidence.

Well that's the part you keep confusing me over the way you phrase things. When you talk about "measurement" of the odds then I agree with you. When you phrase it sounding like there aren't odds because it's effort not odds then I don't. I may not know the exact odds of making it in a specific situation, but I can determine "relative" odds. Clearly 4th and 2 have better odds then 4th and 7 even if to your point we don't know the exact odds of either. I think it's clear 4th and 2 under the circumstances were better odds then punting, though again to your point I don't know the exact odds of either.

Anyway, I don't think we're disagreeing on anything and we're just in semantics.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
User avatar
jeremyroyce
Hog
Posts: 1351
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:27 pm

Post by jeremyroyce »

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
jeremyroyce wrote:I'm sorry I disagree. The Pats burned two timeouts on that drive and should have punted that ball. It would have been different if the Pats were maybe at midfield or a little in Colts territory. But the fact is you are at your 30.

So suppose the Pats punt as you propose and say Manning gets it at the Colt 40. He needs to go 60, the hardest are the second thirty. He did the second thirty. So what you propose is to give up the chance for the Pats and their HOF bound QB to make a 4th and 2 (they did) in exchange for the Colts HOF bound QB having to go the 30 easy yards, he still has to go the 30 hard ones. And you consider that logical based on what? The ONLY reason anyone who's logical would not go for it in that case is the fear they will be criticized because there is no possible way a logical person would take that trade. And fear is not how you win Super Bowls. Ask Coughlin who went for it in a notorious meaningless game against the Pats where it wasn't logical and I called him stupid for it, which I had to retract because while he wasn't logical he wasn't stupid either. Though it made RiC's day, he still brings it up. :)


I personally would not have gone for it in that situation. Especially where they were at on the field. As I mentioned earlier had they been at midfield or possibly in Colts territory then it makes more sense. But I would not give Manning the ball with what two minutes to go and 30 yards to score a TD. I called it before it happened. And I was right. Bill Belicheat should have punted the ball and trusted that his defense would make a stop.
Chris Luva Luva
---
---
Posts: 18887
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 1:55 pm
Location: AJT
Contact:

Post by Chris Luva Luva »

BelliCHEAT lost, therefore he was wrong. lol
The road to the number 1 pick gaining speed!
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

jeremyroyce wrote:I personally would not have gone for it in that situation. Especially where they were at on the field. As I mentioned earlier had they been at midfield or possibly in Colts territory then it makes more sense. But I would not give Manning the ball with what two minutes to go and 30 yards to score a TD. I called it before it happened. And I was right. Bill Belicheat should have punted the ball and trusted that his defense would make a stop.

Right, you'd have made Peyton Manning and the Colts go 60 yards in 2 minutes. Wow, no way he does that. You got me there, what was I thinking?
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

totally agree - Manning scores a TD if he has to go 80 yards with 2 minutes and the game on the line - Belicheat knew that the team's best chance for the win was to get the first down - it was not so much a lack of confidence in the Pats' defense as confidence in the offense to get the first down, combined with the knowledge that Brady (if the situation was reversed) would be able to do that too

I am definetly not a Pats fan and cannot stand their coach but he knows how to win games - great to see them lose this one
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
User avatar
jeremyroyce
Hog
Posts: 1351
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:27 pm

Post by jeremyroyce »

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
jeremyroyce wrote:I personally would not have gone for it in that situation. Especially where they were at on the field. As I mentioned earlier had they been at midfield or possibly in Colts territory then it makes more sense. But I would not give Manning the ball with what two minutes to go and 30 yards to score a TD. I called it before it happened. And I was right. Bill Belicheat should have punted the ball and trusted that his defense would make a stop.

Right, you'd have made Peyton Manning and the Colts go 60 yards in 2 minutes. Wow, no way he does that. You got me there, what was I thinking?


It's obvious that no matter what I say is wrong so I am going to end this discussion. Before, I do I want to say one thing. I called it before it happened, I said there is no way the Pats will get this first down they need to punt and sure enough, I WAS RIGHT.
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

jeremyroyce wrote:It's obvious that no matter what I say is wrong so I am going to end this discussion. Before, I do I want to say one thing. I called it before it happened, I said there is no way the Pats will get this first down they need to punt and sure enough, I WAS RIGHT.

You can be that way if you want, but my point is you keep repeating they should have punted without addressing that they were giving Manning the ball in all likelyhood roughly the Colts 40 with 2 minutes left.

So let me ask it a different way. Do you realize there was a very high chance that Manning was going to lead them to cover 60 yards and score a TD instead of the 30 he led the Colts over to score a touchdown? He had 2 minutes left and 4 plays in every series. It was Peyton Manning and the Colts offense. You sound like you think that somehow punting gave them a good chance to win. I'm saying the only high probability shot at winning was a first down.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

jeremyroyce wrote:It's obvious that no matter what I say is wrong so I am going to end this discussion. Before, I do I want to say one thing. I called it before it happened, I said there is no way the Pats will get this first down they need to punt and sure enough, I WAS RIGHT.

You can be that way if you want, but my point is you keep repeating they should have punted without addressing that they were giving Manning the ball in all likelyhood roughly the Colts 40 with 2 minutes left.

So let me ask it a different way. Do you realize there was a very high chance that Manning was going to lead them to cover 60 yards and score a TD instead of the 30 he led the Colts over to score a touchdown? He had 2 minutes left and 4 plays in every series. It was Peyton Manning and the Colts offense. You sound like you think that somehow punting gave them a good chance to win. I'm saying the only high probability shot at winning was a first down.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
User avatar
BeeGee
Hog
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:34 pm
Location: VA

Post by BeeGee »

It wasn't the right call and any suggestion, however supported by mathematical experiments, is ABSURD. It's simple: Do I give Manning 60-80 yards of field to cover or do I risk not making the 4th down and giving him 25-30 yards to cover?

It's a gamble that you just don't make. You respect the game, punt the ball, and play defense. Belichoke didn't respect the game, didn't punt, and showed us exactly why it's COMPLETELY STUPID to take that risk in that situation regardless of your offensive capability.

So take your probability equations and shove 'em. I saw all the evidence I needed to see, courtesy of Belichoke's arrogance. And man was it ever fun to watch.
Cowboys 7- Redskins 6 (All we needed was 2 minutes of the 60)
Cowboys 17 - Redskins 0 (Way to NOT show up for the 100th anniversary)
----- TWO EASY -----
HEROHAMO
|||
|||
Posts: 4752
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:34 am
Location: SANTA ANA,CA
Contact:

Post by HEROHAMO »

Wrong call all the way.

They were on the twenty yard line. No way should they have gone for it especially with a lead.

You have to remember up to that point the defense had done a good job in keeping Manning in check. Manning threw two interceptions in that game. One of them just happened a drive before. Kick it deep and let your defense defend.

Wrong call, obviously the Pats lost that game. The ultimate proof that was the wrong call.
Sean Taylor starting free safety Heavens team!

21 Forever

"The show must go on."
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

Funny how some here want to say "I was right" or "he made the wrong call" implying that there was a 'right call' and a 'wrong call' AND that it was 'wrong' because they lost

Belicheat made the only decision that he thought gave his team the best chance to win - IMO this was the only 'call' that Belicheat could make - if he had decided to kick the ball, he was basically giving the Colts and Manning the best chance to win - he made the only 'call' that gave him the best chance to win, that's what winning coaches do - losers give control to the other team

and - IMO the 'call' was not based on any stats





what's with the "I'm right, you're wrong" stuff - this is a discussion
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

BeeGee wrote:It's a gamble that you just don't make

I love Cowboy grammar. And no, that doesn't mean I'm interested in "dating" yours.

But on your point, I concede the Pats should not have gone for it and bow to you as a Cowboy fan making you the site expert on choking.

:hail:
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
Post Reply