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

[BSR]

This season, this current roster.

Non sequitur

 

[ATippett56]

Non sequitur

Keep fishing!

 

[BSR]

Keep fishing!

Keep moving those goal posts!

 

[JJDChE]

Belichick knows the right call to make there. It's a close call for sure, but it's his job to know what gives the team the best probability to win. He chose the play that, based on his experience and knowledge (which is virtually unparalleled), gave them the best chance to win.

 

[Kontradiction]

So your explanation of how it is a loaded question is to pick out one attribute (not a sufficient definition) from wikipedia that could be applied to any question ever asked in a disagreement. Seriously just stop. This is getting silly. I didn't ask you a loaded question. I asked you to assign a probability based on what you think is going to happen. When you think something is the best course of action you are innately assigning a probability to it. I am asking you for that number.

The question, as was originally framed, was a loaded question. If you had asked it in much simpler terms (as you have done below), I would have been more than happy to answer it. On that note, I'm done with this part of the coversation.

You have stated that you think giving the ball back to Manning at midfield down 17 with 8 minutes to go is more risky than giving it to him on the 20 yard line.

Sure I am. Not just because I think 20 yards is some astronomical difference. But, mainly, because if you fail to convert (a 47% risk over the last three seasons), you give a red hot Manning and the Broncos the ball back with the momentum.

I am simply asking you, in a very standard way to attempt to quantify how much more risky you think it is.

If you had framed the question like this before instead of the way you did, I would have answered it a long time ago. You said yourself numerous times throughout this thread that the best way to run the clock down is for the offense to hold onto the ball. Shortly after you've said that (on multiple occasions), you also stated that there was no way to know how much time Manning could make up that additional 20+ yards because, well, he's Manning. If you'd like, I could supply you quotes to that effect. The interesting thing about it is that argument easily goes both ways. At a 47% rate of failure to convert over the last three seasons, it would seem much more risky to not only give Manning the ball back at midfield, but to also give his team the momentum. Shortly after that, it became a two score game. Not much time after that, the Broncos were seemingly on their way in to make it a one score game before the defense (the same defense that I advocated putting on the field after the punt) forced the fumble and kept the Broncos down 10 points instead of 3 with plenty of time on the clock to get the other score.

As you said, this Manning. Why give him and his team a full head of steam when up three scores? Punt it and make him earn it.

I didn't ask for a definitive number, or past data points, or specific examples. I asked for what % of the time YOUT THINK those 20 yards are the difference between winning and losing, and what % of the time YOU THINK Manning wins the game from the 20 yard line in that situation.

You absolutely did ask for a definitive answer in your original question.

If you can't or won't do this you have no business making or criticizing decisions of other because that is how decisions are made.

Anybody have any idea what exactly this means?

You are being what now seems like deliberately evasive and obtuse in answering this question because I think you know that your assertion that the smart move is to "always" try to pin him back isn't based on any coherent logic. It's staggering just how much some people struggle with this.

If it isn't based on any coherent logic, you'd see every team going for it on 4th and 5 up 17 with under 10 to go in the 4th quarter. :bricks:

So you just decided to throw in completely superfluous pieces of 8th grade information to make it seem like you have a grasp on statistics? What other possible reason is there for this little blurb. "yeah well, have you ever heard of regression to the mean?!?!? pshaww boom in yo face!" Big time lol @ you here.

Those three "superfluous pieces of 8th grade information" are, literally, the first thing they go over with you in any statistics class. They are, literally, found in the first chapter of every statistics textbook known to man. But thanks for the personal attack, though. You're beginning to show that you're getting flustered. Meanwhile, I'm sitting back with a smile on my face.

So here we go to demonstrate that you still have no clue what's going on and are just arguing from ignorance....



This is so mindbogglingly dumb I don't even know where to begin. For starters, as explained above you didn't even understand the question.

Sure I did. As I highlighted above, all of those things would have to be taken into consideration in order to answer the question as originally framed. You could have asked it in a much more simplistic manner from the get-go, but you didn't. Now you're stuck on this rather small point of the entire debate (actually, it's turned into a pissing contest) because you know that the question as originally framed was completely ridiculous.

What else are you using to formulate your opinion on the likelihood of manning winning the game fromt he 20? And you ignored the most significant numbers in determining this; the base rate.

I like how you've been trying to make the case throughout this entire post that "you've been trying to ask me, VERY SIMPLY..." and then go on to make this point.

Instead what you've written here is basically "never happened before derp de derp."

Huh?

The fact that in your mind the presumed probability is limited to a universe of these numbers is just insanely idiotic,

You're confused, my friend. You made a point earlier in the thread about taking the amount of instances something has or hasn't happened (a response to my post) and then forming a percentage out of it. I simply showed you three very easy ways that one can determine that without going into a lot of trouble to do so. It was an example. I've made the point that not punting was the wrong decision in so many other ways that I don't really have to go in depth with it, in spite of your requests that I actually do.

and all it really shows is that instead of going and actually thinking about this you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Pot. Meet kettle.

What is this even supposed to mean? facepalm.jpg

Your reading comprehension is failing you again. If you look closely, you'll see that what I did was take your loaded question and input it into the world's premiere search engine to find an answer. After I did that, I copied and pasted the link. Since I could find nothing on the matter, I thought you might have better luck.

NO. Your logic was that the fumble occurred only because of the decision to go for it. That's what you said. I showed you how that is completely idiotic.

So are you saying that Brady would have fumbled it near midfield had we punted? Please explain to me how you would go about proving that. Because, from where I'm standing, we didn't punt. We went for it. Because we went for it, Brady was on the field instead of the sidelines. With him being on the field, there was a 50% chance based on the last three seasons that the offense would get it and a 47% chance that they would fail to convert. The latter happened. And, because the latter happened, Brady fumbled the ball and gave it back to Manning with the momentum.

My example was in a game where the field goal was obviously the correct choice

It was a horrible example. The field goal in the Cardinals game was the correct choice because it was literally the only choice that could be made. The clock had run down and the Patriots needed 3 for the game. In that instance, you attempt 3 every single time. This instance is completely different. The Patriots already had a three score lead and the clock was at 8:00 with the ball being around midfield before the drive haulted. You have a three score lead. Punt the ball back and make them earn it. You drain time off the clock, put the game on your defense to make something happened (which they did at the end), and you fail to GIVE them the momentum.

Just a terrible example altogether.

but according to your previous results-oriented argument, it must have been incorrect because he missed.

You're failing to see that I am not, nor have I been, making a results-oriented argument.

You also go on later in the post and your previous one to make the same asinine argument that because Brady fumbled Belichick must have not considered the possibility that he would (this somehow makes sense in your mind).

I challenge you to quote where I said this.

You've proven totally myopic to this point thoug so I don't expect you to do anything other than continue to shift the goalposts wrt this point.

At no point in this (pissing contest) debate have I "shifted" the goalposts (I suspect you mean "moved").

 

[Kontradiction]

The dramatic conclusion...

jfc. First of all, nice sample size. Second of all, this is laughable cherry-picking by a results-oriented mind at work.

How is the sample size inappropriate? Let me highlight it for you...

1. 2009 is the season in which Brady returned to the team after a year off.

2. 2009 is the first instance in which a controversial decision to go for it against a Manning-led football team occurred.

With those two points in mind, why wouldn't I use the last three years as a sample size? Should I have taken the 2001 team into consideration? Would that have been relevant? :ugh:

The 2009 decision was correct because even though we failed to convert (a 25% event can occur you know),

For starters, the decision to go for it there was even worse than the decision to go for it here was. At least we were in their territory this year. For another, cite your sources for the 25% claim. I'd like to see what their criteria was because, to that point in the season, the team was converting less than 50% of their 4th down attempts.

the chances of us converting were greater than the chances of us punting and keeping Manning from scoring. The fact that people can't think aboutthings in this way without saying "hurr durr stats aren't everything" just shows how stupid they are.

Again, at that point in the season, the team was converting less than 50% of their fourth down attempts, so I'd love to see where you got your 25% figure from and what criteria they used to determine it.

You want to compare it to one time we punted and manning threw an INT. The fact that you think this is meaningful says everything really but I'll walk you through it anyway.

Why not? It was the last instance in which we punted him the ball with the lead. As it turns out, he threw an INT and it ended the game with a win for us. Why wouldn't I include it? The fact that you want it dismissed shows just how weak your argument has been and continues to be.

How many times have we punted and Manning has not thrown an INT?

Plenty. On the same token, how many times throughout his career has Manning fired an INT in the clutch?

What do you think the chances are that Manning throws an INT if we punt?

Can't be determined. If I had to put a number on it, I would suppose that there is a good probability. It's football. Anything can happen. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that our defense has intercepted the ball with the lead on any quarterback. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that our defense has intercepted the ball with the lead against Manning.

That said, though, it's a ridiculous question because it simply can't be determined.

You are talking about a situation where Manning is down 3 scores with 8 minutes left.

Which, again, makes the decision to go for it even worse. Where is the urgency?

What do you think the chances are that Manning being pinned behind the 20 or on the 47 are the difference between him throwing an INT or not in that situation?

The chance of an interception, or a turnover in ANY event, would increase with each yard that the offense had to drive and each play they had to run. Not that the Patriots were in dire need of it, though. After all, we were up 17 with under 8 to go.

I know you can't answer questions that cause you to re-evaluate your terrible logic so I'll just go ahead and write in your next response here: "zommggg dats a lowdud questionsssszzz"

How'd that work out for you?

Do you have ADHD or something? You said originally that "53% isn't that much greater." I asked you "than what?" You then said "47%" I then asked you what your point was and your answer is now that I didn't have a point?

That's not what I said at all. For one, you don't have a point. For another, how is the ratio hard to figure out? Those are our probabilities for success vs. failure on 4th down conversions using three seasons worth of data. I've used them among many other points to make the assertion, the correct assertion for that matter, that going for it on 4th and 5 was a bad idea.

Why don't you take a deep breath befre your next response and make sure you actually understand what you are typing. And 47% isn't the risk. The risk is the % that they lose in game equity, 47% is the chance that they don't convert the first down. Something your next response shows you are lost about as well....

I'm laughing behind the screen right now because you're accusing me of being lost even though you've clearly just shown that you have no idea what my actual argument is. At no point in any of my posts in this thread did I make the claim that their chances of losing were 47% if they failed to convert. If you believe that, I welcome you to present that quote. What I said that there was a 47% chance that they would fail to convert, thus giving Manning and the Broncos the ball back at midfield and give them the momentum with less time to score and pull the game within a two score lead.

WAT. You said it yourself that it's 1-3 plays for Manning. Your entire argument hinges on punting being a smart decision for the Pats in trying to win the game and therefore the correct choice to increase their chances of winning by an amount greater than going for it would. So if 1-3 plays only negligibly increases their chances of winning, and increases it less than going for it does your whole argument is moot. Please read this a few times and at least try to understand it before writing more to show that you didn't.

Actually, my whole argument hinges on going for it being completely unnecessary. The fact that it would have taken 1-3 plays more for Manning was simply a response to your inquiries.

This is really the crux of where you aren't thinking correctly or even trying to. 47% is not the risk. That's the chance that we don't convert.

Now you're getting it! :rocker:

The risk is the % that we lose the game based on the decision. This is extremely basic stuff. We are taking a 53% of converting for a near 100% of winning the game.

Then there's also the 47% chance that you don't convert and give the ball back to a quarterback that has whittled leads against us before with all the momentum at midfield. Again, the decision to go for it wasn't necessary. It also wasn't correct.

It's the correct decision because even the extremely low percentage play that occurred; Brady fumbling, only reduced our chances of winning to 89%. It's a no brainer decision and it's laughable how ignorant so many people are about this.

Brady fumbling was a low percentage play. The offense failing to convert carried a very high percentage.

so let me get this straight: event X occurs. You say that BB must not have weighed the chance that X occurred because it did. And your evidence for this is that x occurred. You then have the audacity to start talking about logical fallacies. And you cap it off with well if he did incorporate it then that's even worse? So coaches should only make decisions that have a 100% success rate?

No, but coaches should make decisions that actually make sense. Scenario...

1. You're up 17.
2. You're in the 4th quarter.
3. You have 8 minutes to go.
4. You're near midfield, in their territory.

Again, where is the urgency to go for it and take a risk of giving the opposing team the ball back with the momentum? I don't see it. The vast majority of NFL head coaches don't see it either. If they did, you'd see teams going for it every week when faced with this scenario. You'd see Belichick himself going for it every week when faced with this scenario. Oh wait, it's Manning so that changes things? Thanks for playing right into my point entirely, then spending precious moments of your time trying to play your way out of it.

Just stop.

I will. At this point, this debate has turned into a pissing contest. Your argument has been a completely convoluted one in which, at no point, have you demonstrated an ability to not only refute my points, but to completely understand them altogether. It's not worth my time anymore. I'll give you the last word on the matter...

 

[Kontradiction]

No, you weren't talking about Arizona. It was from here:



You make no argument as to why it was "boneheaded" other than because punting it was right. You've offered no statistics or even reasoning. The best you have is "because it make sense". Its the very definition of a circular argument.

Explain it to me one more time. Why does the risk of giving it to Manning at near mid field when up by 17 minutes with 8:17 left on the clock exceed the potential benefit of keeping the ball and running down more clock or even scoring?

You may want to go back and re-read everything that I've wrote in this thread, because...

1. That quote was directly in response to the horrible Arizona field goal example.

2. I've made plenty of arguments using statistics for why going for it was not only boneheaded, but completely unnecessary.

3. Why waste my time when you intentionally won't get it out of some misplaced sense of loyalty toward Belichick? Go back to my posts toward Tyrone and you'll see my explanation.

 

[BSR]

You may want to go back and re-read everything that I've wrote in this thread, because...

1. That quote was directly in response to the horrible Arizona field goal example.

You said, "You punt it every time in this situation because it's the decision that isn't completely boneheaded."

Punt...not kick. Stop spinning it. its a circular argument.

2. I've made plenty of arguments using statistics for why going for it was not only boneheaded, but completely unnecessary.

No. You haven't. If you think have then it should be easy for you to just answer the question.

Why does the risk of giving it to Manning at near mid field when up by 17 minutes with 8:17 left on the clock exceed the potential benefit of keeping the ball and running down more clock or even scoring?

3. Why waste my time when you intentionally won't get it out of some misplaced sense of loyalty toward Belichick? Go back to my posts toward Tyrone and you'll see my explanation.

This is nonsense. You think that I have some misplaced sense of loyalty towards Belichick because I think he is right and a good coach? Why don't you stop being so snarky and blatantly obtuse and just answer the question?

 

[captain stone]

And, just like in 2009 if you are planning to go for it on fourth down why throw the ball on third down? Dumb.

And just like in 2009, the dumb-ass 3rd-down pass was nearly converted into a Pick-6.

 

[captain stone]

True but that's what the decision boils down to is do you count on your defense to make something of that extra 20-30 yards or do you count on the GOAT QB to convert 5 yards. I go with my GOAT QB in that situation

Except that the "GOAT" QB has failed, multiple times, in that situation.
Running the ball on both 3rd & 4th downs was the only way to go, both in 2009 & last week.

 

[Kontradiction]

You said, "You punt it every time in this situation because it's the decision that isn't completely boneheaded."

Punt...not kick. Stop spinning it. its a circular argument.

And that was in response to the terrible example of the Arizona field goal. Please stop making yourself look like a fool and, for the love of God, go back and read the post.

No. You haven't. If you think have then it should be easy for you to just answer the question.

Why does the risk of giving it to Manning at near mid field when up by 17 minutes with 8:17 left on the clock exceed the potential benefit of keeping the ball and running down more clock or even scoring?

1. Reward: Keep the ball when already up 17.

2. Risk: Fail to convert, give the Broncos the ball back at midfield, give the Broncos the ball back with momentum, give Manning the ball back with those two things and enough time to put up 17 points.

You've said yourself Manning can ring up points on anyone in a hurry right? So now I'll ask you the questions since Tyrone is apparently taking the weekend off. Why take a 47% risk of not converting and then giving the Broncos all that on a silver spoon? Further, we had a 17 point lead with 8 minutes to go. Why the need to have such a sudden sense of urgency instead of putting it on your defense (which ended up stopping the scoring outburst that came after the momentum shift anyway)?

This is nonsense. You think that I have some misplaced sense of loyalty towards Belichick because I think he is right and a good coach? Why don't you stop being so snarky and blatantly obtuse and just answer the question?

Nah it's not nonsense. It's completely obvious that you're arguing from the loyal homer point of view.

 

[BSR]

And that was in response to the terrible example of the Arizona field goal. Please stop making yourself look like a fool and, for the love of God, go back and read the post.

I am only trying to help you here by pointing out a major flaw in your reasoning.

You stated the field goal was the right thing to do because it was the only sensible thing.

To support that you stated that the punt was the right thing to do because it was the only thing that wasn't boneheaded.

This isn't supported reasoning. Its circular argument. Your attempted bullying tactics of calling people 'foolish' doesn't help anything and just antagonizes others to respond to you in kind. That's why I was wondering if you were actually just trolling the thread because it almost seems like that is what you are looking for.

1. Reward: Keep the ball when already up 17.

2. Risk: Fail to convert, give the Broncos the ball back at midfield, give the Broncos the ball back with momentum, give Manning the ball back with those two things and enough time to put up 17 points.

You've said yourself Manning can ring up points on anyone in a hurry right? So now I'll ask you the questions since Tyrone is apparently taking the weekend off. Why take a 47% risk of not converting and then giving the Broncos all that on a silver spoon? Further, we had a 17 point lead with 8 minutes to go. Why the need to have such a sudden sense of urgency instead of putting it on your defense (which ended up stopping the scoring outburst that came after the momentum shift anyway)?

I see it like this

Reward: Your own offense is most effective at burning the clock. Holding onto the ball allows you to burn the most time possible. There is also the increased chance of adding to the lead and making it a three TD lead instead of two TDs and a fieldgoal.

Risk: You give up the ball at the opponents 37 yard line. Average punting from that area yields the opponent getting the ball at about the 14 yard line. That's a net of 23 yards. That gives the Bronco's an increased chance of scoring of about 20%.

The math on this is outlined in the slide show that I linked earlier. It pretty much dictates that you should go for it unless you think any of the above or any of the probabilities listed in the slide are incorrect or you think your chance of conversion is less than 33%. There is nothing about "urgency" in this decision because neither outcome is going to end the game. Its simply that in this case the reward is much more favorable than the risk.

Nah it's not nonsense. It's completely obvious that you're arguing from the loyal homer point of view.

Again with the bullying tactics. I could just as easily make the argument that you are being a blind contrarian and it would hold just as much weight, meaning little. I said it before and I will say it again, I don't think the decision was even really that important. I wouldn't have had a real problem with it if he had decided to punt there either.

The fact is that there are varying schools of thought on this part of game management. Entire websites are devoted to analyzing these types of decisions. Its a trend that is gaining momentum and coaches are going for it more and more on 4th down. There is that high school team that went for it every time for entire seasons. To basically ignore all that and just claim that this is the only decision that makes sense is just frankly bizarre. All these people aren't idiots, they just have a different opinion than you. I just don't understand for the life of me why you see it so black and white. Its a gray area and in this particular case a very minor decision at that. Its strange to me why you would be so vehemently against it.