Play of the year so far...Rams TD vs the Seahags

Kudos to ST coach there.

Mack Herron said:

Kudos to ST coach there.

Click to expand...

Looked like a scene from Punk'd

bears tried it a couple of years and td was called back for a penalty. kudos today though

The Rams even ankle break the camera man.

What's funny is that none of the Seahawks players on the field (especially the punter) or sideline had the common sense to track the ball in the air and see where it was going in the first place.

Essentially winning the game on a fake punt deep in their own end even more amazing.

I don't get it as a punt team don't you decide kick middle, right, or left? The punter kicks left but the team covers right just because the Rams try to fool them?

Mack Herron said:

Essentially winning the game on a fake punt deep in their own end even more amazing.

Click to expand...

That was such an incredibly stupid call.

The punt return for TD, and the fake punt (*Given the circumstances) are 2 rare plays you'll be lucky to see again. Very lucky win IMO.

TBR said:

That was such an incredibly stupid call.

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. You're 1-4, if you don't convert the fake punt you're gonna lose and be 1-5 anyway because Seattle on their last 3 drives had TD drives of 82, 91, and 80 yards.

JMC00 said:

No it wasn't. You're 1-4, if you don't convert the fake punt you're gonna lose and be 1-5 anyway because Seattle on their last 3 drives had TD drives of 82, 91, and 80 yards.

Click to expand...

So it was a good play because they're 1-4 and suck?

TBR said:

That was such an incredibly stupid call.

The punt return for TD, and the fake punt (*Given the circumstances) are 2 rare plays you'll be lucky to see again. Very lucky win IMO.

Click to expand...

It's not stupid if it works. You may call it luck but the Rams made their own luck.

Wheelman said:

It's not stupid if it works.

Click to expand...

That's just rationalizing it

TBR said:

That's just rationalizing it

Click to expand...

Well that's the way the world works. If it doesn't work you're an idiot. If it works you're a genius.

"Poker is making the wrong move at the right time".

So is football.

Mike the Brit said:

"Poker is making the wrong move at the right time".

So is football.

Click to expand...

Poker can actually be statistically modeled whereas football can not. So that quote doesn't really work here. The other issue is that football games and plays are such a small sample size anything you try and conclude using statistical analysis can be heavily debated, hence all the crappy stats sites that are out there.

TBR said:

So it was a good play because they're 1-4 and suck?

Click to expand...

No, they could have chosen to punt there and lose. The Seahawks offense was rolling.

Fake punt there and you have a chance, especially if you have noticed tendencies to exploit

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

No, they could have chosen to punt there and lose. The Seahawks offense was rolling.

Fake punt there and you have a chance, especially if you have noticed tendencies to exploit

Click to expand...

"chosen to punt and lose" That's a deceiving way to put it. It's not automatic they would've lost.

It was a stupid play and I stand by that.

VrabelJr said:

Poker can actually be statistically modeled whereas football can not. So that quote doesn't really work here. The other issue is that football games and plays are such a small sample size anything you try and conclude using statistical analysis can be heavily debated, hence all the crappy stats sites that are out there.

Click to expand...

The point can be expressed more formally.

In strategic games, probabilities of success for the agent are dependent on the epistemic states of the adversary. The epistemic state of the adversary depends both on certain sorts of objective probability (what cards are being drawn, what the chances are of making a throw and catch) but also the assessment of the rationality of the agent in relation to those objective probabilities.

If the agent, however, does not behave rationally by choosing the most probably profitable option that can create an advantage by disrupting the epistemic state of the adversary which may outweigh the loss that the agent's abandonment of the rational choice entails.

Actually, Machiavelli was the first person to see this when he discussed why Cesare Borgia was so successful as a military commander.

But I prefer the way that Edward G. Robinson puts it in The Cincinnati Kid.

If you think giving the ball to the Seahawks near midfield with over 2 minutes to go and with them only needing a FG to win is the smart thing to do, after they have just shredded your D three times in succession for long drives,

we will just have to agree to disagree with regards to your football intelligence.