Re: 4th and 2 on the their own 30 - Discuss it here (Merged 4X)
I have been arguing the point on its own merits. You're a smart cookie, Brady, but you have not been paying attention. If his statististical analysis is correct (I gave him the benefit of the doubt on that one) then there would be a 40% chance that the first down attempt would fail right? So if you're staring across the field at Peyton Manning, why would you not think that the 40% chance is too big of a one? This is something that has yet to be explained in this thread. But I let it go. In an attempt to dumb things down so that he would understand, I made that analogy. I think it's an apt one as giving Manning the ball at the 28 is pretty much a real life equal to running across a live gun range. And that's where we are now.
I'll grant, for the sake of argument, that the likelihood of the Colts scoring a TD was 100% if we failed to convert that 4th and 2. I'll also grant that the Pats win the game in they convert there. So if you go for it, your chance of winning is equal to your chance of converting. Sure, let's say 60%. If you go for it, you have a 60% chance of winning the football game
You say that that 40% chance is inherently too high. It's self-evidently too high. I say that you can't make that call unless you evaluate the Colts' chance of scoring the touchdown even after the punt. Considering that Manning had led a 70+ yard TD drive in under 2 minutes mere minutes before, and the subsequent 3-and-out would have put our defense back on the field sucking wind, demoralized, and facing a QB who had clearly figured it out... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the chances of Manning shredding that defense for 60 yards over the subsequent 2 minutes were greater than 40%. Some will disagree, and if you disagree on those grounds, then that's the basis for a fruitful discussion.
To say that the 40% is self-evidently too much, though, without any thought at all for the chance of scoring even if we punt, is just tremendously flawed. You're choosing between A and B without having any idea what B even is.
It doesn't. As a personal attack (which, by the way is the tell tale sign that your opponent has been defeated and has no other points... for anyone that has actually taken Critical Thinking) was put on me which called out my intelligence and critical thinking skills, I felt it necessary to respond with that just to show how ridiculous that claim was. Really wasn't meant as anything else.
Fair enough- and maybe you had trumped makewayhomer's argument. Doesn't prove anything, though, since he was one of a whole lot of people arguing that point, and he may or may not have been arguing it very well.
I already know enough about variable A, and that's that variable A failed and resulted in giving Manning the ball at the 28.
You can only evaluate decisions based on information that was available at the time. I'm sure that if Belichick had the ability to magically look into the future and know that the Pats wouldn't convert, he would have punted it.
Variable A also includes 0 timeouts to stop the clock should the Colts get the ball. So, by choosing Variable B you are essentially play it safe/close to the vest.
Same mistake- do you really thing that it's playing it safe to give Manning the ball with 2 minutes left when, not 2 minutes prior, he led an 80 yard touchdown drive in under 2 minutes? I guess I just have a little more faith in our offense than you do, because I absolutely believe that we should be able to get 2 yards when we need to. I guess I'm also more worried about Manning than you are, since, as I'm seeing it, the Colts getting the ball back = losing the game.
When you're looking at gift wrapping one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game a 28 yard drive for a game winning score in a game with severe playoff implications, you always go with Variable B and punt the ball.
Gift-wrapping would be not even trying to keep the ball out of Peyton's hands.
How is that? I can see that we had a 55% chance of winning the game after we punted it away, but those chances are almost certainly lower if the 4th down conversion attempt fails (which is where my point about 40% being too high given where we were).
I already granted that, if the conversion fails, we have a 0% chance of winning the game. I will grant that it was guaranteed that the Colts would get a TD from the 29 (which it isn't, but I'll cede you that point for the sake of simplicity).
On top of that, Manning had already threw up a couple of ducks that were picked off. If we had punted and moved out of the prevent defense, which brought the Colts back into the game, our statistical chances to win the game go up.
Not ducks, exactly. They weren't poorly thrown balls- Reggie Wayne missed his read on that last int, and you're right that that *could* have happened again. They had figured our coverage out by that point, though, and our CBs were absolutely gassed. I agree that the chances of the Pats winning the game are still pretty decent if they punt- maybe even as high as 40%. I just trust our offense to gain 2 yards more than I trust our defense to prevent Manning from going 60.
One thing that I really can't stand, though, is people resorting to the "nobody has ever done this before, so it must be the wrong decision" defense. I expected that to come from a lot of people, but the fact that some of our quality posters (Deus and Kontra) are using it is a little confusing. Next time Belichick makes an unorthodox decision that pays off, I hope you'll be consistent enough to say "he's lucky it paid off, but it was still the wrong call because nobody else does it that way".
