PatsFans.com - Mobile
PatsFans.com
Search

NFL GAME DAY DISCUSSION Week 18 Other Games Thread

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:

venecol

The FRG has a little ****
PatsFans.com Supporter
2021 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
Last time these teams faced each other:

KC 36 - PIT 10 (WK 16)
BUF 33 - NEP 21 (WK 16)
CIN 32 - LV 13 (WK 11)

WC teams going to have to score 30 to have a chance.
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

High Priest at Team Bill's Temple
PatsFans.com Supporter
So context does matter, then, and it shows that (under your theory) Staley didn't really have the courage of his convictions.

Sure…context absolutely matters. I don’t think analytics should ever work in a vacuum, and often times common sense beats analytics.

I wonder if the Chargers would have gone for 2 had this not been a bizarre game where a tie is basically as good as a win. But if that wasn’t a factor then, yes, I think at some point every coach has a point where the fear of failure overtakes the correct risk:reward decision.

And also, I’m guessing Staley factored in “momentum” as well, even though analytics would say there really is no momentum, so erasing a 15 point lead in the past doesn’t predict the future. Maybe there’s something to the defense being tired, but maybe that goes both ways. That’s a really interesting debate and at the crux of what you and I (and often others) sometimes see these decisions differently.

I think the biggest issues with trying to assess decisions is that no two decisions are exactly alike. Even with computer models about field position, it doesn’t account for your quarterback. If it accounts for your quarterback, it doesn’t account for your left tackle needing a breather. And so on and so on.

All that said, I wouldn’t say I’m really an analytics guy to begin with. My reasoning isn’t really rooted in math; it’s really just based around the idea that I’d rather put the game in the hands of my star QB if I have one, and keep the ball away from the other team’s star QB. And it’s worth taking those types of risks, usually.
 

Deus Irae

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club
PatsFans.com Supporter
Sure…context absolutely matters. I don’t think analytics should ever work in a vacuum, and often times common sense beats analytics.

That's been my position from the beginning of the analytics movement. My point in mentioning it here is that, under your theory, Staley agrees with the notion, and thus has no excuse for some of his ridiculous calls.


I wonder if the Chargers would have gone for 2 had this not been a bizarre game where a tie is basically as good as a win. But if that wasn’t a factor then, yes, I think at some point every coach has a point where the fear of failure overtakes the correct risk:reward decision.

And also, I’m guessing Staley factored in “momentum” as well, even though analytics would say there really is no momentum, so erasing a 15 point lead in the past doesn’t predict the future. Maybe there’s something to the defense being tired, but maybe that goes both ways. That’s a really interesting debate and at the crux of what you and I (and often others) sometimes see these decisions differently.

If I recall correctly without double checking, the analytics tells you to go for two there, because it gives you an increased chance of winning. It also gives you an increased chance of losing, but lessens the chances of a tie. How Staley might have been swayed by the context here is something that would be interesting to know.

I think the biggest issues with trying to assess decisions is that no two decisions are exactly alike. Even with computer models about field position, it doesn’t account for your quarterback. If it accounts for your quarterback, it doesn’t account for your left tackle needing a breather. And so on and so on.

All that said, I wouldn’t say I’m really an analytics guy to begin with. My reasoning isn’t really rooted in math; it’s really just based around the idea that I’d rather put the game in the hands of my star QB if I have one, and keep the ball away from the other team’s star QB. And it’s worth taking those types of risks, usually.

Yeah, and another problem with the analytics is that you become an automaton over a couple of percentage points. "It's a 51% chance of success if I do it this way, and only 49% if I do it the other way" shouldn't be convincing logic to anyone.
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

High Priest at Team Bill's Temple
PatsFans.com Supporter
That's been my position from the beginning of the analytics movement. My point in mentioning it here is that, under your theory, Staley agrees with the notion, and thus has no excuse for some of his ridiculous calls.

If I recall correctly without double checking, the analytics tells you to go for two there, because it gives you an increased chance of winning. It also gives you an increased chance of losing, but lessens the chances of a tie. How Staley might have been swayed by the context here is something that would be interesting to know.

Yeah, and another problem with the analytics is that you become an automaton over a couple of percentage points. "It's a 51% chance of success if I do it this way, and only 49% if I do it the other way" shouldn't be convincing logic to anyone.

Good points here.

Another issue is that color commentators and pundits are quick to declare anything that seems aggressive or risky to be “analytics“ when often is really isn’t rooted in that.

My understanding is that analytics are often used for things like play selection, tendencies, etc. Things like how often you run on first down.

On a lot of these scenarios, as you pointed out with 51%, you’re really looking at small margins which are undoubtedly changed by real time considerations. If you assume both teams have roughly a 50% chance to win in OT, and you have ~50% chance of converting that game winning 2-point conversion, the math simply justifies either decision…and I think it continues to justify either decision until you get into some range like 60-65% favorability, where then it becomes clear there’s an obvious probability advantage one way.

Last year, LaFleur kicked that field goal in the NFCCG. Analytics said it was about the same win probability either way, though slightly favoring the field goal, but there’s a good example of the missing out on common sense to gain some fractional mathematical advantage. You’re putting the game in Brady’s hands and taking it out of Rodgers hands.
 

Deus Irae

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club
PatsFans.com Supporter
General post, not aimed at anyone in particular, but just so people have the info:



Bisaccia says that the timeout changed the Raiders' thinking. Carr says the timeout changed the Raiders' thinking.


Staley says the time out didn't change the Raiders' thinking.




Y'all are free to choose who you believe.
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

High Priest at Team Bill's Temple
PatsFans.com Supporter
General post, not aimed at anyone in particular, but just so people have the info:



Bisaccia says that the timeout changed the Raiders' thinking. Carr says the timeout changed the Raiders' thinking.


Staley says the time out didn't change the Raiders' thinking.




Y'all are free to choose who you believe.

Zero argument from me on that one. What the hell was he thinking there?
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

High Priest at Team Bill's Temple
PatsFans.com Supporter
His claim is that he wanted to put his best 1 RB run defense personnel on the field.

It seemed like the defense was in position to stop that run…I’d have to watch it again. But the timeout just seemed weird. There was no way the Raiders were throwing there, so I thought the defense would just sniff out the draw.
 

mosi

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
The biggest bright spot in a rather crappy day!

You can say that again. Almost makes me happy.

On a side note, I will say that the coach of the year to me is Mike Tomlin. I mean, that team is garbage fire terrible. But he held it together and they made the playoffs.
 

1960Pats

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
I see that Rodgers and Brady both got a 1 yard TD pass this week.

Speaking of Rodgers, I don't normally root for injuries, but having him play for the sole purpose of padding his stats had me wishing someone would knock his block off. Imagine what it would have done to GB's chances if he was lost for the playoffs.

Stafford still blows.

It was odd seeing Aaron Donald giving out high-fives along the bench with about 2 minutes left and the Rams leading. He should have waited for the game to end.

I'm surprised at how little respect Ryan Tannehill gets here, especially considering his success against the Pats in the past and the way he helped the Titans rebound from the loss of Henry this year.

Hey, how about those Indiots losing to the Jags?

For years now I've been praying to the football gods to please please please please please let both the Indiots and Ratbirds miss out on the playoffs. All I can say now is thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you.
 

Tottie

In the Starting Line-Up
I still can't believe that coach. How do you trust a guy to make all these 4th down and game changing calls and he wasn't even able to read the situation last night. Everyone in the world but him knew what the raiders were doing and apparently everyone else but him also knows why they decided to kick the field goal instead.
 

Hammer of Thor

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
I don't know if Staley is a good coach. He lucked into coaching an all star team on the Rams.

Chargers will probably take that NT Davis in the draft if they're smart. Their run defense looks as crappy as the Patriots run D.

.
You don’t know if he’s a good coach? After this season and especially that game, it should be clear that he’s a bad coach. He might be fine as a coordinator, but his decision making at the top spot is just atrocious.
 

Hammer of Thor

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
It seemed like the defense was in position to stop that run…I’d have to watch it again. But the timeout just seemed weird. There was no way the Raiders were throwing there, so I thought the defense would just sniff out the draw.
Not just that. If you the Raiders, you were running the ball hoping to get a few extra yards, but you were content with missing the FG and tying. That’s what they had already been doing the first 2 downs in that sequence. The only thing you can’t do is lose that game. And you know the Chargers are ok with a tie.

Chargers call their 1st timeout there with 35 seconds left. If I’m the Raiders, it’s telling me that, rather than accepting the tie, the Chargers are planning on taking their final timeout after the 3rd down play too. And that means, if we shank a 55+ yard attempt, that the Chargers will get the ball back at their ~45 yard line, needing just 15 yards with 20 seconds to go for theIr own game winning field goal attempt.

This turns the Chargers into the aggressors. When the Raiders said it “changed their approach,” it clearly meant that they changed their call from a “let’s just try to pick up a couple of yards,” to “crap, let’s go all out with our best running play to try to pick up that 1st down.”

Maybe the Chargers run defense was that bad that they would have given up a 1st down on the original play anyway. And that kick had a lot of leg on it, maybe it would have been good from 57 yards anyway. But we’ll never know because the Chargers decided to try to intimidate the Raiders there, and it cost them their season.
 

Koma

In the Starting Line-Up
General post, not aimed at anyone in particular, but just so people have the info:



Bisaccia says that the timeout changed the Raiders' thinking. Carr says the timeout changed the Raiders' thinking.


Staley says the time out didn't change the Raiders' thinking.




Y'all are free to choose who you believe.

Maybe the analytics told Staley the timeout wouldn't change the Raiders thinking? ;)
 

upstater1

Pro Bowl Player
Is it right that the Chargers would have played at Cincy and the Raiders at KC in the event of a tie?

If so, the Raiders had every reason in the world to go for the win. I am not a Staley fan because I think most of his decisions "based on analytics" are stupid.

But the Raiders had to be going for it in that situation. And if they weren't going for it, then Bisaccia is an idiot.

What Staley saw before the timeout was that the Raiders were going to run and for some dumb reason he had a light-set out there. Blame it on bad coaching but if he wasn't a complete idiot, he would already know that, one, the Raiders didn't want to play the Chiefs, and that two, they were going to run on 3rd down.

I really believe people are making too much of this, although it is quite possible that Bisaccia is a complete idiot too.
 

Top