Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from choircontrarian. Show choircontrarian's posts

    Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    Mike Hall of NESN.com did some complicated math to calculate the odds of the call, and shows Belichick made the right one.

    According to Hall, "the Pats had a 66.27 percent chance of gaining two yards on the fourth-and-2" and "the Patriots' winning odds are 78.8 percent when going for it and 70 percent when punting." It is called LOGIC folks. where Bel was wrong was in not quickly surrendering the TD so Brady has ample time to lead us back into field goal range. If the reasoning for going for it is because you fear Peyton marching down 70-60 yards, why would you not concede that he could from less than 30 yards?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from sodiumpentothal. Show sodiumpentothal's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    In Response to Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!:
    [QUOTE]Mike Hall of NESN.com  did some complicated math to calculate the odds of the call, and shows Belichick made the right one. According to Hall, "the Pats had a 66.27 percent chance of gaining two yards on the fourth-and-2" and "the Patriots' winning odds are 78.8 percent when going for it and 70 percent when punting." It is called LOGIC folks. where Bel was wrong was in not quickly surrendering the TD so Brady has ample time to lead us back into field goal range. If the reasoning for going for it is because you fear Peyton marching down 70-60 yards, why would you not concede that he could from less than 30 yards?
    Posted by choircontrarian[/QUOTE]

    Right, Wrong or indifferent, it does not matter.  What does in fact matter is the "BRAINCRAMP" the entire coaching staff had after the fact.  They failed to act to give the TEAM a final opportunity to salvage a win.  That my friends, is inexcusable.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from K-max. Show K-max's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    If your intention is to go for in on 4th why don't you run it on 3rd to keep the clock running and maybe even pickup the 1st?

    They call a pass on 3rd and 2 that was almost a pick 6, went incomplete and stopped the clock.  Maybe they called a pass on third because they have no faith in that piece of cr@p Maroney, who should of been cut 2 years ago, to pick up 2 stinking yards.

    Not sure who was calling the plays there, at the end, our non existent Coordinator or BB.  But whoever it was needs to be fired.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1020us. Show m1020us's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    In Response to Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!:
    [QUOTE]KOOL AID!!!Get you BB KOOL AID HERE!!! LOl at you know nothings!BB is being crucified by every sports show on the planet. A pee wee football coach would have made the right decision-BB didn't!
    Posted by BbsBlunder[/QUOTE]

    LOL!  Leon is back!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sam-Adams. Show Sam-Adams's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    In Response to Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!:
    [QUOTE]If your intention is to go for in on 4th why don't you run it on 3rd to keep the clock running and maybe even pickup the 1st? They call a pass on 3rd and 2 that was almost a pick 6, went incomplete and stopped the clock.  Maybe they called a pass on third because they have no faith in that piece of cr@p Maroney, who should of been cut 2 years ago, to pick up 2 stinking yards. Not sure who was calling the plays there, at the end, our non existent Coordinator or BB.  But whoever it was needs to be fired.
    Posted by K-max[/QUOTE]

    Whoever is calling the plays needs to go, I couldn't believe what they were doing on both sides of the ball almost the entire 4th qtr.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    In Response to Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!:
    [QUOTE]Mike Hall of NESN.com  did some complicated math to calculate the odds of the call, and shows Belichick made the right one. According to Hall, "the Pats had a 66.27 percent chance of gaining two yards on the fourth-and-2" and "the Patriots' winning odds are 78.8 percent when going for it and 70 percent when punting." It is called LOGIC folks. where Bel was wrong was in not quickly surrendering the TD so Brady has ample time to lead us back into field goal range. If the reasoning for going for it is because you fear Peyton marching down 70-60 yards, why would you not concede that he could from less than 30 yards?
    Posted by choircontrarian[/QUOTE]

    Why would a coach ever bet against his team.  Here's the other point.  The colts return game sux.  The colts punted a number of times in last nights game.  The colts did not need a drive just for a FG.  They needed a TD.  Bad call.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoHoldingCalls. Show NoHoldingCalls's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    In Response to Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!:
    [QUOTE]If your intention is to go for in on 4th why don't you run it on 3rd to keep the clock running and maybe even pickup the 1st? They call a pass on 3rd and 2 that was almost a pick 6, went incomplete and stopped the clock.  Maybe they called a pass on third because they have no faith in that piece of cr@p Maroney, who should of been cut 2 years ago, to pick up 2 stinking yards. Not sure who was calling the plays there, at the end, our non existent Coordinator or BB.  But whoever it was needs to be fired.
    Posted by K-max[/QUOTE]
    Passing on 3rd and 2 made no sense whatsoever, especially that close to the 2 minute warning.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from sodiumpentothal. Show sodiumpentothal's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    In Response to Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!:
    [QUOTE]If your intention is to go for in on 4th why don't you run it on 3rd to keep the clock running and maybe even pickup the 1st? They call a pass on 3rd and 2 that was almost a pick 6, went incomplete and stopped the clock.  Maybe they called a pass on third because they have no faith in that piece of cr@p Maroney, who should of been cut 2 years ago, to pick up 2 stinking yards. Not sure who was calling the plays there, at the end, our non existent Coordinator or BB.  But whoever it was needs to be fired.
    Posted by K-max[/QUOTE]

    Good Post... Your 100% correct.  If you're thinking about going for it on forth down, then why not try 2 blast plays up the gut.  How about short middle to Moss or Welker (they worked all freakin game long)?  Worse case scenerio, WHY HAVEN'T WE INCORPORATED STANBACK IN THE WILDCAT?  When we signed him, he was promised he'd get to play QB.  We used to direct snap to Faulk, Welker, etc... why not this guy, he's got mad skills...  Check them out...

    http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=isaiah+stanback&ei=UTF-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&fr2=tab-web&tnr=21&vid=000149576169
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tompenny. Show tompenny's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    In Response to Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!:
    [QUOTE]If your intention is to go for in on 4th why don't you run it on 3rd to keep the clock running and maybe even pickup the 1st? They call a pass on 3rd and 2 that was almost a pick 6, went incomplete and stopped the clock.  Maybe they called a pass on third because they have no faith in that piece of cr@p Maroney, who should of been cut 2 years ago, to pick up 2 stinking yards. Not sure who was calling the plays there, at the end, our non existent Coordinator or BB.  But whoever it was needs to be fired.
    Posted by K-max[/QUOTE]

    This is correct. It was a terrible call. I don't care what stats you bring up. I say run it three times and make them use all their timeouts then punt. This is common sense and he didn't use any. At minimal you run on 3rd to keep the clock moving. Giving Peyton a 30 yard field with plenty of time = stupid.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from choircontrarian. Show choircontrarian's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    In Response to Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS! : This is correct. It was a terrible call. I don't care what stats you bring up. I say run it three times and make them use all their timeouts then punt. This is common sense and he didn't use any. At minimal you run on 3rd to keep the clock moving. Giving Peyton a 30 yard field with plenty of time = stupid.
    Posted by tompenny[/QUOTE]thats the problem with some of u. logic matters not. bb gets bolder as season wraps up and in the [layoffs. he has the numbers and the facts. here are 2 more. versus the colts, 12 times he has gone for it on 4th down. he is 4 out of 4 in the playuoffs, 8 of 12 in the regular season. oh no, let's go with YOUR emotions and those of idiot armchair qbs and coaches. bel made the right call, the play was properly executed where it was supposed to go and stuff just happpened. i really hope bb keeps doing stuff like that and keeps that edge. the next 3 times in that scenario, they will get it. all of u remember the jet game last year when cassel threw the perfect pass to moss on 4th down. all this stuff creates a mindset that noone else has. we go for it moore on 4th down than anyone else in history and now and we make it more times than anyone else in history or now. 

    lastly, bel has said over and over and over, he doesnt worry about field position, he worries first and foremost about having the right play for the situation. he clearly did, faulk just bobbled it! that was the HIGHEST percentage likelihood of us winning the game. so y the heck are u punting it? yep, so idiots can say "yep, that's what i would have done" and give u cover?  bel is better than us as a coach so give the man the benefit of the doubt!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    In Response to Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!:
    [QUOTE]Mike Hall of NESN.com  did some complicated math to calculate the odds of the call, and shows Belichick made the right one. According to Hall, "the Pats had a 66.27 percent chance of gaining two yards on the fourth-and-2" and "the Patriots' winning odds are 78.8 percent when going for it and 70 percent when punting." It is called LOGIC folks. where Bel was wrong was in not quickly surrendering the TD so Brady has ample time to lead us back into field goal range. If the reasoning for going for it is because you fear Peyton marching down 70-60 yards, why would you not concede that he could from less than 30 yards?
    Posted by choircontrarian[/QUOTE]

    That isn't logic. It is probability. And, I can't tell from how you presented it, but it has the appearance of something being incorrect.

    What situation defines their "winning odds of 78.8%  when going for it". Are you saying that making a first down in this situation gives them a 78.8% chance of winning? 

    If the above is true, then you need to first make the first down which is already defined as a 66.27% chance. But the events are not mutually exclusive. You need to attempt the first down in order to get the 78.8% chance to win. In this case, you need to multiply the odds together: 66.27% by 78.8% gives you a probability of 52.2 % chance. 

    Now, with the punt you are saying once they punt, they have a 70% chance of winning. So you would have to do the same thing based on the odds of the punt being "good". I would say that there is at least a 99% chance the punt gets off and, overall, a 90% chance that it is a "good" punt. So, if we only go by "good" punt standards, then you need to multiply .9 by .7 and you get 63%. In order for the probability to be the same as going for it, the overall chance of having a "good" punt would have to drop below 75%. 

    Keep in mind that I am basing the calculations on an assumption of what you mean. If your meaning is different, let me know.

    And even regardless of that, I still think the move was the right one, that the Pats made the line of gain and that the refs screwed them.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 4Adam13. Show 4Adam13's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    I think Faulk got a bad spot. I'm not sure of where I thought the spot should have been would have actually gotten a first down, but it would have been a lot closer, a mere inch or two.


    BB made a decision to win the game. The defense was gassed.....they were on the field for over 50 plays. Thats a TON of plays when you can't sub due to the Colts no huddle and injuries. They punt, then the Colts have 2 plus minutes with 3 timeouts.....thats an eternity for PM against a worn out defense. Colts would have ended up leaving seconds on the clock either way. BB played for the win. It just didn't work out this time.


    Was it a gamble. Sure it was. If they had made it, most of the people on here would jump on the bandwagon and tout how great it was  and how BB is the man. Fact is, he played for the win, it didn't work out. You can point to all kinds of things that led to this loss.....how bout the fumble at the 1? Yeah, we got a touchdown on the next drive, but you can't say "t!t for tat". I'll take BB and this team over any alternative.

    On to the Jets.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from JaxFBLover. Show JaxFBLover's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    I am yet to see a convincing video that the ball was bobbled.  Are we looking at the same replays?  The defensive guy was trying to get the ball away from Faulk and he obviously made the first down!  Don't second guess Bellichick --- get mad at the call -- it was dead wrong.  (I live in Florida and I am not a Pat's fan!).  The officiating in that game was terrible and the refs decided the outcome.  Plain and simple.  I saw the play from the side and it was a first down!!@!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from mnp3a. Show mnp3a's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    In Response to Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!:
    [QUOTE](...)Are you saying that making a first down in this situation gives them a 78.8% chance of winning?  If the above is true, then you need to first make the first down which is already defined as a 66.27% chance. But the events are not mutually exclusive. You need to attempt the first down in order to get the 78.8% chance to win. In this case, you need to multiply the odds together: 66.27% by 78.8% gives you a probability of 52.2 % chance (...)
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]

    Hi there, i'll try to clarify a little:
    The number-crunchers take the following odds:

    1) odds of "a team" coming back 70 yds to win ... they state those at 30%

    2) odds of getting the 2 yds for a first down (60%)

    3) odds of stopping "a team" after failing to convert (47%)

    So the 79% is 'the sum of'      60% + 40%x47%

    Wich means that statistically the choice is sound. You can argue that (3) is in fact lower because the team in front of you is not "any" team, but then (1) gets higher too. In the end 1 out of 4 times you lose by going for it, 1 out of 3 times you lose by punting.

    BUT

    that's just the numbers and they don't account for the dynamics of that particular game, also BB (and the players) are better at that than us: they are there.

    SO

    I feel i can't critizice the choice of going for it and i understand that once they decided they were going for it then they had to pass: on the last series they were getting negative yardage on the run plays, you have to think that you can convert one out of two passes for two yds.

    in my humble opinion this just stresses the fact that the team desperately needs a running back that the can trust to get ONE yd/play!!!, because on third and two you run, they are forced to take their last timeout and now you are not thinking about giving PM two minutes, one time out, plus the warning against a tired defense; but simply 110 secs and no timeouts.

    It has been said this choice meant BB didnt trust the defense. The numbers point me to believe that BB deeply and strongly believes that the team has no running game at all.

    But we already knew that.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    In Response to Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS! : Hi there, i'll try to clarify a little: The number-crunchers take the following odds: 1) odds of "a team" coming back 70 yds to win ... they state those at 30% 2) odds of getting the 2 yds for a first down (60%) 3) odds of stopping "a team" after failing to convert (47%) So the 79% is 'the sum of'      60% + 40%x47% Wich means that statistically the choice is sound. You can argue that (3) is in fact lower because the team in front of you is not "any" team, but then (1) gets higher too. In the end 1 out of 4 times you lose by going for it, 1 out of 3 times you lose by punting. BUT that's just the numbers and they don't account for the dynamics of that particular game, also BB (and the players) are better at that than us: they are there. SO I feel i can't critizice the choice of going for it and i understand that once they decided they were going for it then they had to pass: on the last series they were getting negative yardage on the run plays, you have to think that you can convert one out of two passes for two yds. in my humble opinion this just stresses the fact that the team desperately needs a running back that the can trust to get ONE yd/play!!! , because on third and two you run, they are forced to take their last timeout and now you are not thinking about giving PM two minutes, one time out, plus the warning against a tired defense; but simply 110 secs and no timeouts. It has been said this choice meant BB didnt trust the defense. The numbers point me to believe that BB deeply and strongly believes that the team has no running game at all. But we already knew that.
    Posted by mnp3a[/QUOTE]

    Thanks. Good to know the 62% was already calculated into the final 78.8. 

    Regardless of the numbers, I liked the decision to go for it.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from choircontrarian. Show choircontrarian's posts

    Re: Belichick was RIGHT... Here are the FACTS!

    bel had gone for it 16 times against the colts and got it 12 times. 8 of 12 in reg season, 4 for 4 in playoffs. sure its even higher than the 75 percent when its 4th and 2 or less!
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share