Going for it on 4th down was CORRECT...here's why...

[TyronePoole]

That's a loaded question and a logical fallacy.

explain this please.

In this instance, I'll ask another: How did putting it on the defense a year after the infamous 4th and 2 turn out for the Pats?

huh? 4th and 2 was in 2009. And I don't know what you mean by "putting it on the defense" but it doesn't apply to this situation. He put it on the offense to get a 1st down, knowing that even under the worst outcome they were still a heavy favorite to win. The entire team has to finish the game, "putting it on" one side or the other doesn't make any sense when there's 8+ minutes left.

The hindsight bias is just amazing. As if punting doesn't carry any risk at all and Brady fumbles a high % of the time when going for it there.

 

[Kontradiction]

What does it matter if you are giving it back to him a little closer? It makes it slightly harder for him. You have to give it back to him eventually. Meanwhile if you do succeed you run off much more time which greatly increases your chance of winning. You are really missing the point that the most important factor is running off the time. Its situational football.

In the game of football, it could matter A LOT if you give it back to him a little bit closer. And, in this instance, we didn't succeed and needed the Broncos to bail us out later on in order for it not to matter in the end.

It clearly did. What part of winning by two scores did you miss?

I didn't miss any of it. I was too busy thanking God for Willis McGahee, as I'm sure was Belichick.

If they get the TD there you win by 3 even with terrible execution by the offense. In otherwords, it ended up not mattering that you gave it back to Manning with a short field in that situation.

You're failing to recall that the Broncos would have still had time to get that other three, pending an onside kick recovery or them stopping our offense (or our offense stopping themselves, as was the case near the end of the game).

That point would have been driven home even more if Ridley doesn't fumble the ball on their 30.

As would the point that the failed conversion could have been looked at as an even bigger blunder of McGahee doesn't get butterfingers in our territory.

 

[BSR]

huh? 4th and 2 was in 2009. And I don't know what you mean by "putting it on the defense" but it doesn't apply to this situation. He put it on the offense to get a 1st down, knowing that even under the worst outcome they were still a heavy favorite to win. The entire team has to finish the game, "putting it on" one side or the other doesn't make any sense when there's 8+ minutes left.

The hindsight bias is just amazing. As if punting doesn't carry any risk at all and Brady fumbles a high % of the time when going for it there.

He's referring to 2010 when the Patriots had a 4th and 7 on their own 32 and this time they punted. At that point Manning drove it effortlessly to the NE 24 and then threw an interception. Somehow, he thinks this proves some sort of point neglecting to notice either the differences in conversion distances or the fact that fact that Manning did drive it well past the distance he would have taken over if he had tried and failed.

 

[TyronePoole]

He's referring to 2010 when the Patriots had a 4th and 7 on their own 32 and this time they punted. At that point Manning drove it effortlessly to the NE 24 and then threw an interception. Somehow, he thinks this proves some sort of point neglecting to notice either the differences in conversion distances or the fact that fact that Manning did drive it well past the distance he would have taken over if he had tried and failed.

Oh I see. So basically his entire argument is "don't play pocket Aces against pocket Kings because one time a couple of years ago pocket Kings ended up winning."

or better yet:

"How did punting work out that time they punted to Pacman Jones and he took it to the house?"

I mean we only have to look back to week 2 of this year for an example of being risk averse to a fault costing the team a game.

 

[BSR]

In the game of football, it could matter A LOT if you give it back to him a little bit closer. And, in this instance, we didn't succeed and needed the Broncos to bail us out later on in order for it not to matter in the end.

What part of three score lead are you missing?

I didn't miss any of it. I was too busy thanking God for Willis McGahee, as I'm sure was Belichick.

Was he going in for the rarely accomplished 11 point TD?

You're failing to recall that the Broncos would have still had time to get that other three, pending an onside kick recovery or them stopping our offense (or our offense stopping themselves, as was the case near the end of the game).

You are failing to recall that they were stuffing it down their throats with the run all day long. They were running it down their throats before Ridley fumbled it. And they continued to run it down their throats after they got the ball back. Noticing a trend here?

You want to call McGahee's fumble a gift. And yet you are saying that our offense losing two fumbles and allowing an on-side kick are such high probabilities that we should factor them into a decision as to whether we should go for it on 4th down when up by three scores with 8 minutes left to play? Do you understand how incredibly contrived that is?

As would the point that the failed conversion could have been looked at as an even bigger blunder of McGahee doesn't get butterfingers in our territory.

Well yeah, that was my point. One cancels out the other.

 

[BSR]

Oh I see. So basically his entire argument is "don't play pocket Aces against pocket Kings because one time a couple of years ago pocket Kings ended up winning."

or better yet:

"How did punting work out that time they punted to Pacman Jones and he took it to the house?"

I mean we only have to look back to week 2 of this year for an example of being risk averse to a fault costing the team a game.

You are missing one thing... anecdotal evidence is only relevant to topics that go against conventional wisdom or football cliches. In this case if Phil Simms says "make them drive the length of the field" then that is of course what you should do and we need results 100% in the opposite to disprove it.

 

[Kontradiction]

explain this please.

You should take a critical thinking class sometime. They explain this as part of the course...

Loaded question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

huh? 4th and 2 was in 2009. And I don't know what you mean by "putting it on the defense" but it doesn't apply to this situation. He put it on the offense to get a 1st down, knowing that even under the worst outcome they were still a heavy favorite to win. The entire team has to finish the game, "putting it on" one side or the other doesn't make any sense when there's 8+ minutes left.

I was talking about 2010.

The hindsight bias is just amazing. As if punting doesn't carry any risk at all and Brady fumbles a high % of the time when going for it there.

No, Brady doesn't fumble it a high percentage of the time. But to that point of the game, Brady had been under a good amount of pressure. On top of that, the offense hadn't been converting 4th down attempts at an astoundingly higher rate than they hadn't been throughout the last three seasons either.

 

[Deus Irae]

...Anyway, I know better than to waste more of my time on another "argument" with you. ...

Just two quick highlights:



What does this even mean?



What are you basing this on? Please say "my gut"

The humor of those conflated posts, while not lost on me, isn't really enough to get me involved further with you.

 

[TyronePoole]

You should take a critical thinking class sometime. They explain this as part of the course...

Loaded question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I know what a loaded question is. I obviously meant for you to explain how mine was one. The irony and evasiveness are noted however.

No, Brady doesn't fumble it a high percentage of the time. But to that point of the game, Brady had been under a good amount of pressure.

what relevance does this have if Brady doesn't fumble a high % of the time there?

On top of that, the offense hadn't been converting 4th down attempts at an astoundingly higher rate than they hadn't been throughout the last three seasons either.

At 53% (your number) this really doesn't mean anything (nor do I believe it to be true.) The fact remains that even a low % shot at a first down is worth the risk when 20 yards of field position means little in increasing wp.

 

[TyronePoole]

The humor of those conflated posts, while not lost on me, isn't really enough to get me involved further with you.

well you found your escape hatch then, congrats

 

[Deus Irae]

well you found your escape hatch then, congrats

It's No escape hatch, slick. You're the one who didn't want to argue anymore, remember?

...
Anyway, I know better than to waste more of my time on another "argument" with you.

You played the "Woe is me. Deus is the devil." card. Now you want a do over. As I said, the humor's not lost on me. Your trying to act as if I was the one who tapped out, when it was you, is pretty scummy, though.

 

[TyronePoole]

It's No escape hatch, slick. You're the one who didn't want to argue anymore, remember?



You played the "Woe is me. Deus is the devil." card. Now you want a do over.

Sorry, slick. It's not going to happen.

No I didn't, I simply alluded to the fact that when you're flailing in an argument you tend to tard up the thread with this kind of crap, wasting everyone's time by diverting the discussion and trying to muddy the water. I guess I've fallen victim to it again though, so well done.

 

[billdog3484]

get off BBs sac...it was a bad call. they shoulda punted

 

[ATippett56]

Three times against the Buffalo Bills earlier this season the New England Patriots did not attempt an offensive play on fourth down in the first half alone.

New England Patriots versus Buffalo Bills:

1st Quarter 3:26 4th & 2 BUF 41 Punt

2nd Quarter 13:52 4th & 2 NWE 49 Punt

2nd Quarter 5:46 4th & 1 BUF 24 Field Goal (No Good)

New England Patriots at Buffalo Bills - September 30th, 2012 - Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[Kontradiction]

What part of three score lead are you missing?

I'm not missing anything. You're missing how this sentence itself plays right into my point.

Was he going in for the rarely accomplished 11 point TD?

No, but he would have had a shorter field to drive for the score, thus using less time on the clock. He would have also had more time to put up the final three if we gave them the ball back again.

You are failing to recall that they were stuffing it down their throats with the run all day long. They were running it down their throats before Ridley fumbled it. And they continued to run it down their throats after they got the ball back. Noticing a trend here?

The following are gains on all the rushing attempts in the 4th quarter: 11, -3, 3, 3, 5, 0, 4, 20, 2 (fumble), 1, 6, 11

That's 5.25 YPC. Take out the 20 yard run and you're under 4 YPC. We were running the ball well (we had all game), but we were hardly running the ball down their throat. Half of those rushing attempts netted 3 yards or less.

You want to call McGahee's fumble a gift.

Where did I say that? What I actually said was McGahee's fumble was what ultimately helped make that decision less stupid than it ultimately was.

And yet you are saying that our offense losing two fumbles and allowing an on-side kick are such high probabilities that we should factor them into a decision as to whether we should go for it on 4th down when up by three scores with 8 minutes left to play? Do you understand how incredibly contrived that is?

1. We didn't allow an onside kick, we recovered it.

2. One of those fumbles only came because the decision to go for it was the wrong one. It doesn't occur with a punt.

3. What I'm actually taking into consideration, for the umpteenth time, is the fact that we WERE up by three scores. Why take a big risk in giving Manning the ball back near midfield when we could have punted it to him. In this case, with a punt, we're looking at a Stokely score with 5:30 or less left instead of 6:30, a Ridley fumble with 4:30 left instead of 5:27, and a McGahee fumble at the 11 which could have easily went for a TD with 2:40 left instead of 3:48, and a TD *possibly* coming AFTER the two minute warning where, even if they had recovered an onside, they would have had to do it with just over a minute remaining. Making him go 20 to 30 yards more also takes into account the possibility of a turnover (being that they have to run extra plays from a different down and distance) and increases the chance of a stop.

In the end, as you say, we were up three scores. Was there really a need to try to ice the game at the expense of putting one of the most elite quarterbacks ever to play the game near midfield, thus giving him and his team all the momemtum?

 

[Deus Irae]

No I didn't, I simply alluded to the fact that when you're flailing in an argument you tend to tard up the thread with this kind of crap, wasting everyone's time by diverting the discussion and trying to muddy the water. I guess I've fallen victim to it again though, so well done.

Your comment was specific. You then tried to get out of it and continue the argument, and you tried claiming I was the one backing down when I decided not to rejoin the discussion on that topic. To use your own words....

You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[BSR]

In the end, as you say, we were up three scores. Was there really a need to try to ice the game at the expense of putting one of the most elite quarterbacks ever to play the game near midfield, thus giving him and his team all the momemtum?

Yes, because the increased chance of letting up a score doesn't mean all that much. Look at your time analysis. You gave yourself a very generous minute of time and yet, all else being equal, there was still enough time left for him to try a field goal. If you go for it and get it, you've essentially eliminated one of those possessions and totally put it out of reach.

 

[Kontradiction]

Yeah, I know what a loaded question is. I obviously meant for you to explain how mine was one. The irony and evasiveness are noted however.

I'll ask again, what % of the time do you think an extra 20 yards is the difference between winning and losing against Peyton Manning when up 17 with 8+ minutes to go?

If you don't understand how this is a loaded question based on reading it, then I can't help you. I can ask you how many times going for it on 4th down when up multiple scores in the fourth quarter going against Peyton Manning has ultimately won the game for the Patriots in the Belichick-Brady era, and it would be the same thing.

what relevance does this have if Brady doesn't fumble a high % of the time there?

Again, the only reason Brady fumbled was because of the bad decision to go for it. I highlighted as much in my last post.

At 53% (your number) this really doesn't mean anything (nor do I believe it to be true.) The fact remains that even a low % shot at a first down is worth the risk when 20 yards of field position means little in increasing wp.

1. 53% isn't an astoudingly higher success rate.

2. Better field position decreases the amount of plays needed to be run in order to get in striking distance, thus decreasing the possibilities of both stops and turnovers while decreasing the amount of time that comes off the clock.

3. When Brady lost the fumble, it was at the Denver 48. Mesko had a pretty solid game. You're underestimating his ability to have pinned it inside the 20.

4. That number is absolutely true.

 

[Kontradiction]

Yes, because the increased chance of letting up a score doesn't mean all that much. Look at your time analysis. You gave yourself a very generous minute of time and yet, all else being equal, there was still enough time left for him to try a field goal. If you go for it and get it, you've essentially eliminated one of those possessions and totally put it out of reach.

The point being, of course, is that we DIDN'T get it and that the risk of putting Manning at midfield with a three score lead and the momentum instead of making him have to drive the distance of it was boneheaded. Your own "3 SCOER LEED!!!1/" argument has been working against you since Jump St. and you still haven't realized it...

 

[TyronePoole]

I'll ask again, what % of the time do you think an extra 20 yards is the difference between winning and losing against Peyton Manning when up 17 with 8+ minutes to go?

If you don't understand how this is a loaded question based on reading it, then I can't help you. I can ask you how many times going for it on 4th down when up multiple scores in the fourth quarter going against Peyton Manning has ultimately won the game for the Patriots in the Belichick-Brady era, and it would be the same thing.

No it wouldn't, it's not close to the same thing at all. One is asking you to put a percentage on it based on established information that is available, the other is asking how many times this exact situation has happened. if you think that's the same thing I suggest you step away for a minute and think about it. Every decision we make is based on an assumed probability we innately put on the likelihood of the result.

I'm simply asking you to put a number on the argument you've been making so that I can demonstrate why your argument is flawed.

Again, the only reason Brady fumbled was because of the bad decision to go for it. I highlighted as much in my last post.

What does this mean? By this logic the only reason why anything bad that happens is the decision preceding it. I guess choosing to kick a FG against the AZ was the wrong decision because Gostkowski missed it?

This is the definition of results-oriented thinking and it doesn't even take into account the fact that even with the Brady fumble the chances of the Pats winning was only reduced by an extremely small number.

1. 53% isn't an astoudingly higher success rate.

Than what?

2. Better field position decreases the amount of plays needed to be run in order to get in striking distance, thus decreasing the possibilities of both stops and turnovers while decreasing the amount of time that comes off the clock.

And you think this difference is significant. Every piece of evidence we have points to the difference in plays, field position and time making a negligible amount of difference based on the base rate, a number that gets even smaller when Manning is the opposing quarterback.

3. When Brady lost the fumble, it was at the Denver 48. Mesko had a pretty solid game. You're underestimating his ability to have pinned it inside the 20.

No you are foolishly thinking that Belichick doesn't incorporate Mesko's average punt from that spot into the equation. Even punting to the 1 would only increase their chances of winning marginally, and it's very a low percentage play.