Official Patriots/Falcons Post Game Thread

[maverick4]

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.

Are you serious. You're STILL trying to pretend you're not completely over your head and talking of your a*s???

I never said the penalty always exceeds the payoff, I said in that situation you can't use reason to justify why it was a smart move backed by analysis or a payoff tree.

There's no point trying to convince the genius who thinks that getting a 1st down near your own 25 yard line, somehow equates to a Patriots payoff of +3 points for us. ARE YOU SERIOUS???

I'm going to save myself the time (though it was good for a laugh) and just put you on ignore.

 

[Wolfpack]

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.

His logic is highly flawed. What he is saying is if you always go for it on 4th down, you will score on some possessions where you otherwise would not have, therefore it is smart to always go for it.

What he is completely ignoring is the fact that if you always go for it, you will fail to convert on some situations, thereby dramatically increasing the chances your opponent scores on their subsequent possession.

Furthermore he makes a HUGE logical flaw saying you should always go for it on 4th and 4 since the average play gains 5 yards. In this instance, the average is irrelevant, what we are interested in is the median. If the average is 5 but the median is 3, then that shakes things up, doesn't it?

 

[letekro]

Are you serious. You're STILL trying to pretend you're not completely over your head and talking of your a*s???

I never said the penalty always exceeds the payoff, I said in that situation you can't use reason to justify why it was a smart move backed by analysis or a payoff tree.

There's no point trying to convince the genius who thinks that getting a 1st down near your own 25 yard line, somehow equates to a Patriots payoff of +3 points for us. ARE YOU SERIOUS???

I'm going to save myself the time (though it was good for a laugh) and just put you on ignore.

Mother of Mercy. By getting the first down, we increase our chances of scoring (if only slightly). By not getting the first down, we increase their chances of scoring (greatly). It's the relative probabilities of all these events that need to be calculated. It's a complicated calculation, but to say, as you did, that it's always a bad call, it wrong.

Anyway, I'm making a mathematical point. Obviously BB doesn't go through these complex calculations, however, he does do a rough analysis of them. This is called "decision making". His flippant comment that it was stupid, notwithstanding, he based the decision on analysis. This is something that maverick, the doubtlessly fine middle-manager that he may be, doesn't understand.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

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.

Agreed, some of the arguments he makes seem flawed. However, I've seen a bunch of different studies arguing in favour of going for it, and I haven't seen any that suggest it's a bad idea.

BB getting THAT specific 1st down doesn't guarantee anything. But over the course of a season, yes, it will lead to more scores.

Another TMQ link showed some more statistal analysis with some different criteria, which showed a slight increase in points scored and no increase in points given up (sorry for the same source, it's what got me thinking about this topic).

Bottom line: avoiding punts added an average of one point to a team's per-game scoring, without adding any points to its opponents' average scoring. Teams avoiding punting became 5 percent more likely to win -- statistically significant owing to the thousands of tries. Doesn't sound like much? One more point scored per game represents the difference between the Bengals and the Patriots of the 2006 season. Last season, one additional victory would have put the Packers, Panthers or Rams into the playoffs. A 5 percent improvement in victory likelihood translates into one additional victory per 20 games, or just shy of one extra win per NFL season. I think any NFL owner would gladly pay millions of dollars for one additional win per season.

So if it led to one loss, and the strategy would pay off with 1 more win per season, it's not a huge leap to conclude you'd win 2 games from this strategy.

I'm not saying statistics are everything, or that numbers are more important than coaching. I'm simply saying that I believe it was the right call, and even if it failed, I would have supported it because it makes a lot of sense to go for it.

 

[Wolfpack]

By the way, let the record show that I am someone who believes teams should punt less. I actually agree with some of the logic of fewer punts - just not when you are on your own 24.

But as far as statistical analysis goes... I am still working on paper proving why teams should deliberately take a safety on 4th down when they are inside their own 5 instead of punting it during the first 3 quarters of the game (and not inside the 1st half's 2:00 warning). Clearly those in this thread smart enough to agree with my position on Belichick's decision are smart enough to peer-review it

 

[letekro]

By the way, let the record show that I am someone who believes teams should punt less. I actually agree with some of the logic of fewer punts - just not when you are on your own 25.

But as far as statistical analysis goes... I am still working on paper proving why teams should deliberately take a safety on 4th down when they are inside their own 5 instead of punting it (assuming it is still in the first 3 quarters of the game). Clearly those in this thread smart enough to agree with my position on Belichick's decision are smart enough to peer-review it

I nominate Maverick.

 

[Patspsycho]

By the way, let the record show that I am someone who believes teams should punt less. I actually agree with some of the logic of fewer punts - just not when you are on your own 24.

There you go again, looking at the play in a vacuum.

Clearly those in this thread smart enough to agree with my position on Belichick's decision are smart enough to peer-review it

:wha:

Here's your medicine:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2009/09/taking_over_the.html

If you want to argue with this further, feel free to take it up with the entire team.

 

[BradyFTW!]

They were 2nd in the NFL in rushing and 7th in ypc. I say that is an 'excellent running team' you say that is a team so poor that our good run D against them is an illusion.

A) that's not what I said

B) As I've stated a few times, the Falcons had probably the easiest schedule in the league last year for their running game. Just wait and see how this plays out over the next few weeks after Atlanta comes out of its bye- they weren't a very good running team coming into Foxboro, and that'll be proven out as they continue not to run the ball very well. The red flags were there last season, and they've been there throughout this season so far too. If I'm wrong, feel free to call me on it in a few weeks.

 

[realtime]

Do your worst. You probably won't, since there's absolutely no evidence to support your claim.

Jenkins is overrated. Period. Full stop. If you think you can convince otherwise, go for it. Otherwise, put a sock in it.

He was traded to the Jets for a 3rd and a 5th. That, and the fact that you think he is overrated, are two very compelling pieces of evidence that he is NOT overrated.

 

[JackBauer]

He was traded to the Jets for a 3rd and a 5th. That, and the fact that you think he is overrated, are two very compelling pieces of evidence that he is NOT overrated.

LOL.

Quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read all day. A 3rd and a 5th for "the best NT in the game"?

Yeah, I don't think so. I'm glad you think because I think he's overrated, that means he's not overrated. Don't try to, you know, make an actual argument or anything. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself.

 

[letekro]

LOL.

Quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read all day. A 3rd and a 5th for "the best NT in the game"?

Yeah, I don't think so. I'm glad you think because I think he's overrated, that means he's not overrated. Don't try to, you know, make an actual argument or anything. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself.

The guy missed two whole years due to injury immediately prior to the trade and he still commanded two draft picks. When healthy, he is dominant. And he's been healthy with the jets.

 

[amazinPats]

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.

Good points.

 

[Brady to Brown]

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

I don't preach, I made a comment.

But you are correct, I let him drag me down to his level.

My kids would not be happy with me.

 

[Brady to Brown]

One final comment on this....

Had the Pats not made the 1st and the Falcons take the lead and win the game the Patriots and in particular Bill Belichick are laughing stocks of the NFL this week. Many, many stories on WTF was Belichick thinking.

 

[letekro]

One final comment on this....

Had the Pats not made the 1st and the Falcons take the lead and win the game the Patriots and in particular Bill Belichick are laughing stocks of the NFL this week. Many, many stories on WTF was Belichick thinking.

I know you wanted to have the last word on this, but.....is this how you want our coach to make his decisions??? "OK, if I do this, and it doesn't work out, will Keith Olbermann and Michael Felger laugh at me?" Really?????

 

[maverick4]

Can someone fill me in on the Jenkins pissing match? What page did it start, thanks.

 

[JackBauer]

The guy missed two whole years due to injury immediately prior to the trade and he still commanded two draft picks. When healthy, he is dominant. And he's been healthy with the jets.

The only thing is that he's only dominant about a third of the time he's in the game. He wears down. Everyone knows this. Did you watch him at all last year?

 

[convertedpatsfan]

One final comment on this....

Had the Pats not made the 1st and the Falcons take the lead and win the game the Patriots and in particular Bill Belichick are laughing stocks of the NFL this week. Many, many stories on WTF was Belichick thinking.

I agree, that would have happened. But so what? Some loser like Peter King says something not nice about him. Oh no!

It was a risk, I'm not denying that. But there are no guarantees in life; everything has some risk to it. He took a calculated risk that could be justified in a lot of different ways except for "conventional" football thinking. It made sense to attempt, and that's why I supported the call, and would have defended it even if it failed.

I am not saying I would make the same call that he did; I wouldn't have the guts to do it. I'm just saying I understood why he did it, and it makes a lot of sense.

 

[Wolfpack]

One final comment on this....

Had the Pats not made the 1st and the Falcons take the lead and win the game the Patriots and in particular Bill Belichick are laughing stocks of the NFL this week. Many, many stories on WTF was Belichick thinking.

You took the words right out of my 110% - I swear, I was just about to say virtually the exact same thing. If they hadn't made it, we would have heard endless comments like "You're in control of the game, your defense is playing well. What the heck were you thinking..?!?"

In fact, I bet some of the people in here saying how smart the decision was would be the first to levy the criticism.

Furthermore, some in here seem to think that the fact that the Patriots were in control of the game makes it a good decision. Quite the contrary: The fact that they were in control of the game is precisely why it was not a good decision.

Post Script: I notice no one has taken me up on my gentleman's bet. So even the people supporting the move know deep down that Belichick won't be doing it again.

 

[mcsully]

The guy missed two whole years due to injury immediately prior to the trade and he still commanded two draft picks. When healthy, he is dominant. And he's been healthy with the jets.

Your wasting your time with most of these guys..

I actually had one poster tell me I basically was fighting an up hill battle because some guy had 4000 posts.. heheheheh.. Same cat who didn't know Ngata is a DT/RDE..