Official Patriots/Falcons Post Game Thread

[Joker]

why bother with any of this crap sh!t stirring..that's all you select group of clowns do all day all week all month all year long...pull out all these statistical models to prove that the sky is always falling. Why don't you all just find another team to "follow". Your staggering sense of self importance is stunningly ludicrous. Not one of you stat geeks would produce anything more than a 0-16 season if YOU ran the Patriots operations. Thank God you don't.

 

[JFK]

+1.

Let me relate a little story... I was once in Foxwoods playing Blackjack and some clueless girl at the table had a hard-18 against the dealer's 6. She says she wants to hit, and everyone (including the dealer) is trying to talk her out of it. But she won't listen to them so she hits. Sure enough, she gets a 3 and gives everyone at the table a big fat "I told you so."

So what's the moral of the story? Just because something worked doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid thing to do, and it doesn't mean you'll see other people doing the same thing.

I see your point but it wasn't stupid because the offense needed that. The girl didn't need that.

 

[Wolfpack]

LMAO! "Don't base your opinions on statistics, just make blanket statements with no supporting data!"

With all due respect, having no statistics is better than completely made up ones like the ones you put in Post 204.

 

[Brady to Brown]

I loved the call. Yes, there's a risk, but EVERYTHING in football has a risk. Every pass could be an interception. Every run could be a fumble. But it was a calculated risk, and the odds were overwhelmingly in his favour.

If you look at it statistically, the benefits of going for it outweigh the negatives when it fails. We even saw the Falcons go for it a few times on 4th down (I remember at least one drive where they picked it up and scored a TD). But forget statistics and numbers and logic. BB challenged the players, and the players responded. They got the yard. They got a bunch more. They would score on the drive, and then they would add a TD later on. Up to that point, it was a close game. From that point on, the Pats rolled.

I'd feel the same way if it failed. It was the right thing to do. The "easy" thing to do in that scenario is punt. Then if they lose, it's the fault of the players. But if they went for it and failed, everyone would blame the coach. He was not afraid of the criticism. He was not afraid of what the media might say. He was only focused on how to help his team win the game.

It was a gutsy call and the right call.

You love the call because it worked.

If it didn't work and the Falcons score a TD and end up winning the game many here would be saying Belichick has lost his mind.

 

[BelichickFan]

+1.

Let me relate a little story... I was once in Foxwoods playing Blackjack and some clueless girl at the table had a hard-18 against the dealer's 6. She says she wants to hit, and everyone (including the dealer) is trying to talk her out of it. But she won't listen to them so she hits. Sure enough, she gets a 3 and gives everyone at the table a big fat "I told you so."

So what's the moral of the story? Just because something worked doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid thing to do, and it doesn't mean you'll see other people doing the same thing.

The probability of this working and us gaining at least some more yards before punting was pretty good. It wasn't stupid, it just had severe consequences with a fairly low likelihood of occurring.

 

[letekro]

I see your point but it wasn't stupid because the offense needed that. The girl didn't need that.

Why do see his point? His "point" shows no understanding of the concept of probability. With the girl, the odds were against her. It was a stupid play. With BB, the odds were with him (yes, maverick, even weighted to take into account the severity of the penalty), so it was not a stupid play.

 

[Brady to Brown]

I wanted them to go for it but was stunned that they did. It was time to man up and gain a yard. With all due respect to our team, it was time to stop ****yfooting around this season and start converting some short yardage runs.

With all due respect the other side of the 50 yard line is the place for that.

 

[Brady to Brown]

1. If he did and it paid off BIG, why wouldn't he do it again??
2. So let's say it didn't work, and, worst case scenario, they score and we're down 17-16 with a quarter to go. That's the WORST case scenario. But the two scenarios were not equal in probability, which is the concept which you are apparently failing to grasp. There was probably a 90% chance of converting the 4th and inches, which led to us putting the game away, while there was only a 10% chance of being stopped. But the chances of the bad outcome (touchdown) are even less than 10%, because we may have stopped them. So, roughly, we had a 90% chance of taking control of the game, a 5% chance of giving up a FG and a 5% chance of falling behind by 1 with a quarter to play. This is what is called a CALCULATED risk, and it may have turned the season around.

I can't believe this.

 

[Brady to Brown]

You talk about taking the high road, but now you're calling other people names?

Talk about hypocrisy!

I guess you missed the post I am responding to.

 

[Patspsycho]

+1.

Let me relate a little story... I was once in Foxwoods playing Blackjack and some clueless girl at the table had a hard-18 against the dealer's 6. She says she wants to hit, and everyone (including the dealer) is trying to talk her out of it. But she won't listen to them so she hits. Sure enough, she gets a 3 and gives everyone at the table a big fat "I told you so."

So what's the moral of the story? Just because something worked doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid thing to do, and it doesn't mean you'll see other people doing the same thing.

With all due respects, that's comparing apples to oranges, you're missing the whole point here.

BB made that move with the big picture in mind, and all you're doing is looking at that play in a vaccum, as strictly a numbers/probability situation.

That girl took a blind gamble.

BB had quite a few indicators to consider:

1) the OL run blocking was outstanding (as opposed to last week)
2) It was a fourth and foot.
3) The defense was playing lights out.

And based on that, he wants to send them a big vote of confidence by implicitly saying: "I trust you guys to bail me out in case I f**k it up."

And how do they respond for the rest of the game when they are on the field?

Fumble, punt, punt, punt, punt. In other words, a shutdown.

 

[maverick4]

Nope, you still don't get it. You're only looking at the penalty, when decision makers have to look at the penalty MULTIPLIED by the probability (stated as a fraction). To say that something is ALWAYS a bad idea becaues the penalty is high is leaving out the probability element, which is equally as important. I obviously don't know the exact percentages, but I think the ones I chose are fairly realistic.

Is this poster for real? Please keep posting on this letekro, you're making an even bigger fool of yourself than you have already made yourself to be.

This poster has clearly never calculated a payoff tree in his entire life. It's a major achievement for him just to be able to use some of the terminology.

The [benefit/payoff] x [chance of success] is MUCH less than the [penalty/damage] x [chance of failure], no matter what you plug in for the probabilities.

The move can't be justified on rationale grounds. We can still like it, though.

 

[sieglo]

Greg Lewis is looking pretty good up there in Minnesota right now, game saving touchdown and all.

So is Reche Caldwell, with the game winning TD against the Steelers.

Do you want him back?

 

[Patspsycho]

I guess you missed the post I am responding to.

Doesn't matter. You failed to take the high road that you preach people should take.

 

[letekro]

So is Reche Caldwell, with the game winning TD against the Steelers.

Do you want him back?

OK guys, enough. Andre Caldwell, Reche's brother, made the catch. NOT RECHE.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

You love the call because it worked.

If it didn't work and the Falcons score a TD and end up winning the game many here would be saying Belichick has lost his mind.

I'm a big believer in statistical analysis. The old baseball crowd would refer to people like me as "Moneyball losers."

IF it didn't work AND the Falcons score a TD AND end up winning the game, this strategy would have directly led to one loss. But if you continued to go for it in situations like this throughout the course of a season, you'd convert more times than not, and the conversions would lead to you win a few games you shouldn't have.

A really nice argument about this is laid out here by TMQ. It's also a bit older and a bit dated, so you could also check out this link which supports it.

 

[maverick4]

I can't believe this.

I'm as shocked as you are.

Talking to letekro about calculated risks using rational payoff theory, is like talking to someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old and tries to use 'science'.

 

[Patspsycho]

why bother with any of this crap sh!t stirring..that's all you select group of clowns do all day all week all month all year long...pull out all these statistical models to prove that the sky is always falling. Why don't you all just find another team to "follow". Your staggering sense of self importance is stunningly ludicrous. Not one of you stat geeks would produce anything more than a 0-16 season if YOU ran the Patriots operations. Thank God you don't.

I like to debate. It's fun, and you sometimes learn from the other point of view. I have been wrong many times.

 

[letekro]

Is this poster for real? Please keep posting on this letekro, you're making an even bigger fool of yourself than you have already made yourself to be.

This poster has clearly never calculated a payoff tree in his entire life. It's a major achievement for him just to be able to use some of the terminology.

The [benefit/payoff] x [chance of success] is MUCH less than the [penalty/damage] x [chance of failure], no matter what you plug in for the probabilities.

The move can't be justified on rationale grounds. We can still like it, though.

Maverick, why are you resorting to personal attacks? You're the one using terminology. Ok, so you're the expert, since I don't even know what a "payoff tree" is.

But I know that your statment that the penalty always exceeds the payoff is wrong because you're putting the wrong value in as the payoff. You're assuming that that value is "one first down". In reality, the relevant payoff is "FG", which would make it a two score game. If that is the variable, then depending on the relative probabilities, yes, it certainly IS possible that the payoff would exceed the penalty. I think if you really read this, you will understand, but that may be too much to hope for...

 

[maverick4]

IF it didn't work AND the Falcons score a TD AND end up winning the game, this strategy would have directly led to one loss. But if you continued to go for it in situations like this throughout the course of a season, you'd convert more times than not, and the conversions would lead to you win a few games you shouldn't have.

A really nice argument about this is laid out here by TMQ.

I've actually read that paper too. However, I think there are major flaws in his reasoning and how he's calculating payoffs. If you remember his argument, he thinks that anytime you're in FG range, you should always go for it on 4th down, even 4th down and 10. The inputs he creates to make this argument are not convincing.


Also, it's a huge leap by you to say that "the conversions would lead to you win a few games you shouldn't have." Belichick getting that 1st down, still puts us near our own 25 yard line, very far from any chance of scoring. The chance of failure gives the team and automatic 3 points at least, with a decent chance at 7.

 

[PittPatriot]

greg lewis`s 1 catch looked better then galloway did all game............

not complaining just stateing the obvious

Yes, but everyone knows how you need a Master's degree to understand the Pats playbook. No run of the mill WR could ever hope to learn it.
Of course, the Vikes had to dummy-down for Favre, so any WR can catch TD's in that system.