ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Did anyone else notice how the calls were absolutely ridiculous in last nights game with the Bengals?
What is it with the league and thier blatant support of the Bronco's?
I feel bad for the Bengals. They had to overcome the Bronco's in Denver and the Refs and lost because of a pitiful snap.
And the Bronco's who have long been noted to be a dirty team by everyone else in this league had a game earlier this year that went to overtime and the Bronco's had ZERO penalties the whole game which is the 1st time a team has not been penalized an entire game plus overtime in the history of the NFL.
Bengal fans, we feel your pain today.
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Why put all your marbles into a coin toss, especially on the road...If Denver wins the toss, the odds are they would have gotten at least a FG, with a good kicker and the thin air, even in bad weather, the air is thin.
Go for two, go for the win right then, and there, while you have the chance. The Bungles have a good offense, both on the ground and inthe air...and, IMO, going for two, and the instant win, would have been the right thing to do.
Dont put all of your marbles, as I said, in a coin toss.
It's Christmas. Could you kindly give us a break from the stupidity? There's only about a 43% success rate with 2 point conversions. There's well over a 90% success rate with PAT's. That Coin toss you're pointing to is 50/50. Statistically, the Bengals did the right thing.
Go for two, go for the win right then, and there, while you have the chance. The Bungles have a good offense, both on the ground and inthe air...and, IMO, going for two, and the instant win, would have been the right thing to do.
Dont put all of your marbles, as I said, in a coin toss.
Well, I think a great coach will do things by the numbers. Most coaches think there are only two numbers that matter here. A = Chance that you'll score on a two point conversion. B = Chance that you'll win in overtime.
The tendency is to think that if A is greater than B, you should go for two. That would be a serious mistake, and the difference between a good coach and a great coach.
There are at least two other variables here.
C = The chance you'll miss the extra point.
D = The chance that Denver will try to score with their remaining 40 seconds.
E = The chance of recovering an onside kick after a failed after touchdown conversion (whether 1 or 2 point try) and scoring.
D is a bit esoteric. A team at home will play differently depending on whether or not it is losing or tied. It's not accurate to say that by going for 2 Cinci would have been going for the "win." They would have been going for the lead. There was still time left in the game. There was still a kick off, defense to played, and I think Denver had timeouts. If the game had been tied there, Denver actually would have been more conservative on their last drive, depending on the result of the kick off.
Anyway, as said, D is esoteric. But going back to A, B, and C, the proper way to judge that call is to ask not whether A is greater than B, but to ask whether A plus E is greater than B minus C
If you think you have a 40 percent chance of making a two point conversion and a 40 percent chance of winning in overtime, you go for 2 every time, because C is always a number greater than zero and so is E.
(Note, though, that E is a constant in some equations, because the chance of recovering an onside kick and scoring is the same whether or not you miss a one or a two.)
Bottom line for me is that if I thought I had above a 40 percent chance of making the 2 points, I would have gone for it.
It's Christmas. Could you kindly give us a break from the stupidity? There's only about a 43% success rate with 2 point conversions. There's well over a 90% success rate with PAT's. That Coin toss you're pointing to is 50/50. Statistically, the Bengals did the right thing.
Well said DI! Merry Christmas to you! and everyone here!
__________________
Join Patriots Tailgate here if you are going to any road game
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yeah, it IS Christmas, and that comment is uncalled for. I expect an apology.
And regarding the two point conversion, I believe it would have been the right thing to do in that particular situation. Especially knowing that they had already bungled THREE extra point tries earlier this season.
Why put all your marbles in the hands of a coin toss. You have the opportunity to win the game right there in your hands with the two point conversion.,..take it, especially in a situation where you may never get your hands on the ball again.
You dont become winners statistically.
Apology? You mean you expect to issue one for your asinine post, right? Shall we run the numbers for you, one more time, since reading seems to be a problem with you?
PAT's are converted at a rate higher than 90%. Two point conversions are converted at a rate around 43%. Now, in the real word of general mathematics, 90% (and that's actually lower than the rate, which is 94%) is more than twice as much as 43%.
Going for the PAT was the right decision. Bad snaps can happen when the quarterback is under center, too. Or did you miss the other aspects of the situation: Palmer had already tossed 2 interceptions in the game and Johnson had already fumbled for the 3rd time in as many games?
Oops... I guess you conveniently omitted them, huh?
...and once again, your comments , as usual, completely destroy the day we are celebrating, and expose you for the person that you are a, one with a personal vendetta , and one who cant let the day that is Christmas, go by without personal attacks, for absolutely no justifiable reason.
But, Merry Christmas to you too, regardless of what your personal feelings are.... and if you choose not to apologize, that is your perogative.
But,by doing what you have done, not only do you offend me, but you offend everyone in this thread, and on this site.
Hey, slick.... my comments couldn't possibly have "as usual" destroyed the day we are celebrating. I haven't been here long enough for that to happen. And, I'm pretty sure that a fair number of people would note that you took the occasion of Christmas eve and Christmas day, after a Patriots win, to knock not only the Patriots O.C. after a brilliant game plan, but the Bengals coaching staff after they did the right thing. What's offensive is your constant harping of your supposed knowledge when you seem to have none. As I've said before, you don't know things that middle school football players know. Numbers don't tell everything? In other words, you're just pulling your comment out of your ass because you having nothing to back up your ridiculous assertion. The quarterback, running back and top receiver (Jackson had also fumbled) had all shown themselves quite capable of turning the ball over. 94% is a lot more likely to be successful than 43%.
1: I did not knock our Oc...in fact, I withheld from saying anything because of the win, and the day...and suggested that I might post something later in the week.. And, in either case, it was NOT any kind of a verbal assault on ANY poster here.
You didn't withhold from saying anything:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEM
Josh had a little better performance, but ner the end, he almost cost us the game... But, I wont get into the details now, because its time to enjoy the win....
He started out very well, but then he reverted back to his usual self.
Later, as its time to cherish the win.
So, now that we see you're a liar, let's continue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEM
2: Secondly , how do you know the Bengals did the right thing? How do you klnow that goinf for 2 would not have worked, and been the right thing. As it turned out, they did the WRONG thing, because they lost ON THAT PLAY.
No, genius, they didn't do the WRONG thing. As people have tried to explain to you before, sometimes you can do the right thing and it doesn't work. Or, to put this in a more hyperbolic context, if I jump in the river to save a drowning person but fail in the rescue, I still didn't do the wrong thing, and contacting Washington D.C. for help rather than jumping in and making an effort does not suddenly become the thing that should have been done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEM
Either discuss the threads and lay off the personal attacks, or get whatever comes your way.
A lot of people are getting wise to your antics, along with a few others..It will not be tolerated much longer, believe it.
You have hijacked this thread, as you and a few others, have done with many others, by making personal attacks within the context of posts...
And, BTW, in my opinion, I believe the Bengals were wrong...lin your opinion, you believe they were right... Thats the waythe world works...but your personal attacks against me,and my opions are unclaled for, and unjustified, and I deserve a full apology, NOW. And, I am sure that there ore others who agree.
You don't deserve any apology, and you're not going to get one. My "attack" in my first post was on the stupidity of second guessing someone who takes the 94% success rate option over the 43% success rate option. And, it was a comment that got a "well said", you may recall. My second post, AGAIN, was not a personal attack, but rather an attack on your asinine post, which I specifically stated. You then accused me of making personal attacks, which I hadn't. So, since you had decided to play "woe is me" again, I noted that you were pulling your comments out of your ass. I'll stand by that and offer to send you a tube of Preparation H should you have need of it.
Trying to claim that the Bengals were wrong for taking the route that allows them to keep playing 19 times out of 20 rather than taking the route that has them as losers more than half the time is stupid. You, personally, may have the temperament to take the loss there, but most coaches like to keep their jobs and plan accordingly. Somehow, I feel confident that most people would agree with me on this. And my attacks on your opinions are PRECISELY what's called for in the back and forth of a message board.
Actually, you were threatening me. However, as usual, you veiled them, so I deleted that part of my post even before you replied. Nonetheless, you did read it, so consider yourself warned regarding future threats against me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEM
And yes, the stupidity and the asinine comments WERE personal, and I amsure most people would agree. They had no business inthe context of your comments.
Look, from what I've seen of your posts, you are, in fact, stupid and asinine, at least when it comes to football and politics. Nonetheless, I wasn't attacking you personally, and I even flat out stated that I was attacking your post in my second response. If I were attacking you personally, I'd stand behind my comments and proudly defend them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEM
And my comment is not stupid, in fct, under the given circumstance, Ibelieve that many people would have gone for two points, and the win.
As I said, at that point you have the ball....in overtime you may never get to see it again.
Logic says that you take the opportunity with the ball..
Maybe not so in an earlier game, but when there is a lot on the line, as was the case yesterday, you have the ball , use it...because, as I said, it is ignorance to put your entire season in the fate of a coin flip....
Have faith in your team that they can move a football 2 yards rather than have faith in whether a coin will fall heads, or tails.
No, your comment is still stupid. Again, 94% chance to keep playing versus a 57% chance you lose. People are entitled to play whichever odds they chose. But, when you play the odds that are almost certain to succeed and lose, you still didn't make the wrong play. Logic says you take the proper percentage. So, let's break it down:
94% chance of tying = 6% chance of losing
43% chance of winning = 57% chance of losing
Now, even if you continue playing odds after that, it's still going to favor the PAT.
50% chance on the coin flip.
Here are some numbers for you, Chief:
Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003)
365
Both teams had at least one possession
261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game
189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game
160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score
102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie
15 (5 %)
Overtime games in 2002
26
Both teams had at least one possession
15 (58 %)
Team won toss and won game
16 (62 %)
Team lost toss and won game
9 (35 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score
10 (38 %)
Games ending in a tie
1 (3 %)
Overtime games in 2003
23
Both teams had at least one possession
16 (70 %)
Team won toss and won game
12 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game
11 (48 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score
6 (26 %)
Games ending in a tie
0 (0%)
So, 94% chance you go to overtime. Once in overtime, statistically, you're going to get a chance to get the football for the win. In the 2003 season, the number of wins and losses based upon the coin flip were essentially even, 12-11. You can feel free to look up more recent years, this is just from the first site I found. The odds seem to say that both teams will likely get the ball and far less than 57% of the overtime games ended with the coin toss resulting in the team that won it scoring on its first possession.
Again, the Bengals weren't wrong and your argument claiming they were was stupid.
Oh, yeah.... you still lied about not attacking the O.C., so you might want to toss out an apology.
Your high and mighty attitude is not welcome here, and your personal attacks are not welcome here...and not just by me,but Iwould venture by most people here.
This thread was fine, a lot fo good pro and con debate, until YOU decided to take it to a personal attack level....
The thread, started by the O.P., was about the screw job the O.P. felt the Bengals got regarding the officiating. You, as is your wont, chose to attempt to hijack the thread in the very next post, by completely ignoring the point of the O.P. in favor of an attack on someone's playcalling. The very next post, and only the third of the thread, was me calling you out for that stupidity. There was no "good pro and con debate", so do stop lying about what happened. It's pathetic, especially on Christmas.
Denver again helped by refs....
Linear Mode
