***SNF Week 10 - Colts/Pats game thread*** (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

What probability do you assign to the Pats converting on that play? 25%? 50%? 75%?The play was about the same distance as a 2-point conversion, and those plays hit around 45-50% of the time. Given the Colts had more field to defend than on a 2-point conversion, I'd say the play had a slightly better chance than a two-point conversion, so somewhere around 50-60%. With a success rate that high going for it, IMO going for it or punting is pretty much a wash. The part that's tough is that the decision to go for it seemed to sneak up on the Pats. If they were committed to going for it on 4th, they could have run the ball on 3rd, run the clock down to the 2-minute warning, and talked over the 4th-down play without using their last timeout, plus getting an automatic booth review on a close play.

so many people are talking about running it on 3rd down, I dont get it. Just because you go for it on 4th down doesnt mean you want to get to 4th down.If the Patriots didnt think running it was the best chance of getting the 2 yards (which they obviously didnt because they didnt run it on 4th down) then they wouldnt call a running play on third down.

 

[theplayer11]

What probability do you assign to the Pats converting on that play? 25%? 50%? 75%?The play was about the same distance as a 2-point conversion, and those plays hit around 45-50% of the time. Given the Colts had more field to defend than on a 2-point conversion, I'd say the play had a slightly better chance than a two-point conversion, so somewhere around 50-60%. With a success rate that high going for it, IMO going for it or punting is pretty much a wash. The part that's tough is that the decision to go for it seemed to sneak up on the Pats. If they were committed to going for it on 4th, they could have run the ball on 3rd, run the clock down to the 2-minute warning, and talked over the 4th-down play without using their last timeout, plus getting an automatic booth review on a close play.

disagree...you pass on 3rd down, get it and the game is over. Same with 4th down...they had 2 chances to get a 2 yard pass to win the game

 

[Carolina Hustler]

If Brady and company would have pulled off the 1st down conversion, everyone would be licking Belichick's boots right now... I'm not sure it was as horrible of a call everyone is making it out to be. Obviously the results dictate whether the call was correct or not... The results could have easily been different, then would have been a great call. Right?

wrong. The call is terrible regardless of the outcome...

Had they gotten the first down, I'm fairly certain you'd be in the significant minority with this opinion.

im trying to explain to you that the end result of the call has nothing to do with whether the call was good or bad, and you keep referencing the outcome of the call...

The call was very likely +EV, given the %chance of 1st down versus the %chance of a Colts TD from 30 yrds - %chance of Colts TD from 70+ yds with 2 minutes left. I don't have the % numbers, but you can fill in the blanks as you wish.Honestly, I disagree it was a bad call regardless of outcome.

%'s for patriots 4th down completions are certainly available.. I'm sure we could also find %'s for the Colts scoring from 70 yards out vs. 30..... But I'm not doing it, and it's kinda a ridiculous discussion we're all having..lol There are several things a team could have done differently throughout a game that would change the outcome. The games results dictate the validity of the calls....

 

[Ghost Rider]

Interesting how Pats fans seem utterly incapable of questioning Belichick and, instead, seem only hell bent on blaming the refs.Seems like the players (Brady, Watson in postgame interviews) sure are handling this with better measure than their fans here.

Brady could not have come off any better in his post-game press conference. Say what you want about Brady, but the guy was all class in that press conference. And I swear, that was the most I have ever seen Peyton Manning smile in a post-game press conference. He had that "I can't believe we pulled that game out" look (it was the same look some of the Patriots were wearing at the end of the Buffalo game in week 1).

 

[cobalt_27]

What probability do you assign to the Pats converting on that play? 25%? 50%? 75%?The play was about the same distance as a 2-point conversion, and those plays hit around 45-50% of the time. Given the Colts had more field to defend than on a 2-point conversion, I'd say the play had a slightly better chance than a two-point conversion, so somewhere around 50-60%. With a success rate that high going for it, IMO going for it or punting is pretty much a wash. The part that's tough is that the decision to go for it seemed to sneak up on the Pats. If they were committed to going for it on 4th, they could have run the ball on 3rd, run the clock down to the 2-minute warning, and talked over the 4th-down play without using their last timeout, plus getting an automatic booth review on a close play.

Their success rate on 4th down this year is 50%.Coin-flip chance. Thanks to Bill for providing all the silly fun here.

 

[David Dodds]

What probability do you assign to the Pats converting on that play? 25%? 50%? 75%?The play was about the same distance as a 2-point conversion, and those plays hit around 45-50% of the time. Given the Colts had more field to defend than on a 2-point conversion, I'd say the play had a slightly better chance than a two-point conversion, so somewhere around 50-60%. With a success rate that high going for it, IMO going for it or punting is pretty much a wash. The part that's tough is that the decision to go for it seemed to sneak up on the Pats. If they were committed to going for it on 4th, they could have run the ball on 3rd, run the clock down to the 2-minute warning, and talked over the 4th-down play without using their last timeout, plus getting an automatic booth review on a close play.

So a team like the Pats should never punt the ball if they only need two yards regardless where they are on the field?

 

[theplayer11]

What probability do you assign to the Pats converting on that play? 25%? 50%? 75%?The play was about the same distance as a 2-point conversion, and those plays hit around 45-50% of the time. Given the Colts had more field to defend than on a 2-point conversion, I'd say the play had a slightly better chance than a two-point conversion, so somewhere around 50-60%. With a success rate that high going for it, IMO going for it or punting is pretty much a wash. The part that's tough is that the decision to go for it seemed to sneak up on the Pats. If they were committed to going for it on 4th, they could have run the ball on 3rd, run the clock down to the 2-minute warning, and talked over the 4th-down play without using their last timeout, plus getting an automatic booth review on a close play.

Their success rate on 4th down this year is 50%.Coin-flip chance. Thanks to Bill for providing all the silly fun here.

what is it on 4th and 2...not near goal line with short field

 

[Mr Capicollo]

What probability do you assign to the Pats converting on that play? 25%? 50%? 75%?The play was about the same distance as a 2-point conversion, and those plays hit around 45-50% of the time. Given the Colts had more field to defend than on a 2-point conversion, I'd say the play had a slightly better chance than a two-point conversion, so somewhere around 50-60%. With a success rate that high going for it, IMO going for it or punting is pretty much a wash. The part that's tough is that the decision to go for it seemed to sneak up on the Pats. If they were committed to going for it on 4th, they could have run the ball on 3rd, run the clock down to the 2-minute warning, and talked over the 4th-down play without using their last timeout, plus getting an automatic booth review on a close play.

So a team like the Pats should never punt the ball if they only need two yards regardless where they are on the field?

NFL teams convert 4th and 2 about 60% of the time.NFL teams score a TD on a drive starting from their own 35 about 30% of the time. Those are NFL teams selected at random. Put two good offensive teams in the mix, especially the offense you are trying to keep off of the field, and the justification for going for it increases, not decreases. When the Pats are inside their own 15, where the Colts' probably a scoring a TD after a failed conversion goes way up relative to pushing them back 35-40 yards (or even 50-60 yards if you take a safety from inside their own 10), then it's tough to justify going for it. However, in the situation NE was in tonight.... to put it in terms you would understand, the Pats had a pocket pair versus the Colts' overcards, and got all the chips in the middle preflop. It was a bad decision because the Colts hit a pair on the flop, and made trips on the turn, not because of what the preflop holdings were.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

What probability do you assign to the Pats converting on that play? 25%? 50%? 75%?

The play was about the same distance as a 2-point conversion, and those plays hit around 45-50% of the time.

Given the Colts had more field to defend than on a 2-point conversion, I'd say the play had a slightly better chance than a two-point conversion, so somewhere around 50-60%.

With a success rate that high going for it, IMO going for it or punting is pretty much a wash.

The part that's tough is that the decision to go for it seemed to sneak up on the Pats. If they were committed to going for it on 4th, they could have run the ball on 3rd, run the clock down to the 2-minute warning, and talked over the 4th-down play without using their last timeout, plus getting an automatic booth review on a close play.

Their success rate on 4th down this year is 50%.Coin-flip chance. Thanks to Bill for providing all the silly fun here.

what is it on 4th and 2...not near goal line with short field

According to advancednflstats.com's 4th down study numbers, teams convert 4th and 2 outside the red zone about 60% of the time.

 

[j3r3m3y]

What probability do you assign to the Pats converting on that play? 25%? 50%? 75%?

The play was about the same distance as a 2-point conversion, and those plays hit around 45-50% of the time.

Given the Colts had more field to defend than on a 2-point conversion, I'd say the play had a slightly better chance than a two-point conversion, so somewhere around 50-60%.

With a success rate that high going for it, IMO going for it or punting is pretty much a wash.

The part that's tough is that the decision to go for it seemed to sneak up on the Pats. If they were committed to going for it on 4th, they could have run the ball on 3rd, run the clock down to the 2-minute warning, and talked over the 4th-down play without using their last timeout, plus getting an automatic booth review on a close play.

Their success rate on 4th down this year is 50%.Coin-flip chance. Thanks to Bill for providing all the silly fun here.

what is it on 4th and 2...not near goal line with short field

According to advancednflstats.com's 4th down study numbers, teams convert 4th and 2 outside the red zone about 60% of the time.

THIS is why it was a bad call, not because it wasn't 100%.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Not a Pats or Colts fan, so I don't care about the outcome. But I have no problem with the decision to go for 4th down. It's two yards and your offense has moved the ball well all night. If you punt, the Colts would not only have had two minutes, but a time out. Make the first down and you really run the clock down if not end the game. If you miss it they still need a TD.

The Colts drove the final 30 yards pretty easily and didn't even use the time out. What makes anyone think they couldn't have gone 30 or 40 more yards with two full minutes and a time out? If I'm going to fault the team for anything, it's not saving one TO just in case. I mean, miss the 4th down and you might want to stop the clock. But that's second-guessing. The decision to go for fourth down wasn't a bad one imo.

I also find it a little annoying that the talking heads on TV were all saying what a bad decision it was. If they had made it they would have been praising his "gutsy move" and said those are the things that a champion does, blah blah blah. I give Dungy the benefit of the doubt because he was the kind of coach who would have punted. But I think the others were piling on once the outcome was determined.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

Not a Pats or Colts fan, so I don't care about the outcome. But I have no problem with the decision to go for 4th down. It's two yards and your offense has moved the ball well all night. If you punt, the Colts would not only have had two minutes, but all their time outs. Make the first down and at the very least you take away their TOs. If you miss it they still need a TD.The Colts drove the final 30 yards pretty easily and didn't even use a time out. What makes anyone think they couldn't have gone 30 or 40 more yards with three time outs? If I'm going to fault the team for anything, it's not saving one TO just in case. I mean, miss the 4th down and you might want to stop the clock. But that's second-guessing. The decision to go for fourth down wasn't a bad one imo. I also find it a little annoying that the talking heads on TV were all saying what a bad decision it was. If they had made it they would have been praising his "gutsy move" and said those are the things that a champion does, blah blah blah. I give Dungy the benefit of the doubt because he was the kind of coach who would have punted. But I think the others were piling on once the outcome was determined.

The Colts only had one timeout left. They called timeouts after first and second down of the big Pats series where they went for it on 4th.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

if that % is not 100, its a bad call. Simple as that...[/thread]

Not true at all, unless there is another call that provides 100% chance of victory. It was a bad call, but this logic is worse.

You have to be 100% sure you make a 1st down there. Since there is no play that ensures 100% certainty, you must punt there. You just have to.

Not logically valid.

Still can't wrap your mind around this, can you? I suppose I understand.

I could use some help with this logic, too. You require 100 percent certainty? You don't get that with punting. You can't even guarantee that the punt wouldn't have been blocked or shanked. If you require 100 percent certainty, a forfeit is the only option. I don't think your standard fits the parameters of a sports contest. But if you're saying that the risk doesn't outweigh the reward, I understand that position. Not sure which way I would have gone, but I understand both options. But neither had a 100 percent certain result.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I get it, you don't. I am not surprised but in order for that statement to be valid there needs to be an option that will give you an expected outcome of 100% victory to call instead. If there isn't then the statement that "You have to be 100% sure you make a 1st down there." is invalid.It was, in my opinion, a bad call but this justification is flawed.

Well, at least we agree it was a bad decision. Pissed away home field with that one call. Unbelievable.

On the other hand, making two yards could have given you an inside track to HFA throughout the playoffs. Very valuable if you might face the Colts again in January. They'd only be one game behind the Colts with the tie-breaker.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Not a Pats or Colts fan, so I don't care about the outcome. But I have no problem with the decision to go for 4th down. It's two yards and your offense has moved the ball well all night. If you punt, the Colts would not only have had two minutes, but all their time outs. Make the first down and at the very least you take away their TOs. If you miss it they still need a TD.The Colts drove the final 30 yards pretty easily and didn't even use a time out. What makes anyone think they couldn't have gone 30 or 40 more yards with three time outs? If I'm going to fault the team for anything, it's not saving one TO just in case. I mean, miss the 4th down and you might want to stop the clock. But that's second-guessing. The decision to go for fourth down wasn't a bad one imo. I also find it a little annoying that the talking heads on TV were all saying what a bad decision it was. If they had made it they would have been praising his "gutsy move" and said those are the things that a champion does, blah blah blah. I give Dungy the benefit of the doubt because he was the kind of coach who would have punted. But I think the others were piling on once the outcome was determined.

The Colts only had one timeout left. They called timeouts after first and second down of the big Pats series where they went for it on 4th.

Good catch. I edited that before I saw this post but you're right. I still think two minutes and one TO is a lot for Manning, and it makes the reward if you make the first down more valuable since the game would be pretty much over.

 

[jon_mx]

What probability do you assign to the Pats converting on that play? 25%? 50%? 75%?The play was about the same distance as a 2-point conversion, and those plays hit around 45-50% of the time. Given the Colts had more field to defend than on a 2-point conversion, I'd say the play had a slightly better chance than a two-point conversion, so somewhere around 50-60%. With a success rate that high going for it, IMO going for it or punting is pretty much a wash. The part that's tough is that the decision to go for it seemed to sneak up on the Pats. If they were committed to going for it on 4th, they could have run the ball on 3rd, run the clock down to the 2-minute warning, and talked over the 4th-down play without using their last timeout, plus getting an automatic booth review on a close play.

Their success rate on 4th down this year is 50%.Coin-flip chance. Thanks to Bill for providing all the silly fun here.

what is it on 4th and 2...not near goal line with short field

I would say, if there are stat for the Pats on 3rd and 2 that would be representative. I would guess close to 60%.

 

[coolnerd]

What probability do you assign to the Pats converting on that play? 25%? 50%? 75%?The play was about the same distance as a 2-point conversion, and those plays hit around 45-50% of the time. Given the Colts had more field to defend than on a 2-point conversion, I'd say the play had a slightly better chance than a two-point conversion, so somewhere around 50-60%. With a success rate that high going for it, IMO going for it or punting is pretty much a wash. The part that's tough is that the decision to go for it seemed to sneak up on the Pats. If they were committed to going for it on 4th, they could have run the ball on 3rd, run the clock down to the 2-minute warning, and talked over the 4th-down play without using their last timeout, plus getting an automatic booth review on a close play.

So a team like the Pats should never punt the ball if they only need two yards regardless where they are on the field?

that's essentially the argument being made in the threads...statistically at least that 4 and 2 is a high percentage play and that punting is overrated.

 

[RudiStein]

Did the Pats win yet?