Pats vs Indy

[Rick]

Imo Bill Belichick made the right call.  The Pats accumulated almost 500 yards of total offense in the game.  They needed 2 more yards to ice the victory and keep Peyton from seeing the field again.  When you have guys like Brady, Moss, Welker, K. Faulk etc. you expect to easily convert 2 yards more times than not. 

Like Stroke, my only problem was the play call.  I think they should have ran a pass play that covered at 5 yards.  I don't like the idea of a 2 or 3 yard pass on 4th and 2.

[NADS]

Its funny how many of you just cant admit that the pats are a good team. Bill makes a questionable call and I say "WTF just happened" and it turns into Pats suck, and then trying to compair them to the Phins (Apples to a bag of shit) I hate the dolphins but when we beat you, you didn't hear me saying how much they suck. Some of you were saying how your QB is a bag of ass and I was saying how he had a good game.

Apples to a bag of shit--HILARIOUS! 

I'll admit the Pats are good.  They pulled off a win at Buffalo that shouldn't have happened and all three losses this year were close games -- @NYJ, @Denver, and @Indi.  The Jets are probably in for an asswhipping this weekend because they beat NE earlier this year and the Colts debacle.  Good teams win at home, win a few they shouldn't, and come back strong after a loss.  Having said that, here's to hoping the rest of your year goes down in flames, Pats. 

[Spider-Dan]

I don't agree.  Manning threw two INT's last night and the Pats held him to something like six punts, four of those were three and out situations.  A few balls Manning threw were real ducks and not picked out of pure luck.

The only stop NE got against IND in the 4th quarter was on a pick (as a result of an apparent miscommunication).  Manning was trashing their defense and had went 79 yards for a TD twice in 1:49 and 2:04, respectively.

Now, if you honestly believe that NE was going to pick Manning and close the game, then fine.  But outside of that pick, NE's defense was like a sieve with no bottom.  I mean, IND only faced third down ONCE in those two drives!  NE's defense was completely useless at that point in the game.  So if you want to run the probability of Brady converting 4th-and-2 vs. a miracle game-ending pick of Manning, then go ahead.  I'd take Brady.

Punt is the conservative move that you take if you are a coach worried about protecting yourself from media criticism.  Every mathematical analysis from every single statistical outlet (every one!) has said that going for it was the superior (or, at very worst, virtually even) choice.  The smart pick is to go for it.  The safe pick is to punt away.

If you want to talk about tactical errors, you should talk about what the hell the Patriot defenders were doing when they tackled Addai TWICE.  Let him score (he was not even trying to pull a Westbrook) and give the ball to Brady with ~a minute left to get into FG range.

[YoFuggedaboutit]

^^^^^^

That same strategy was what the Dolphins employed when the Bucs picked off that ball and then got so close to the goal line.  The Dolphins started using their timeouts to preserve time, and boy did it pay off.  Just enough time on the clock to drive down for the game winning FG

[Dave Gray]

I punt.  The Colts had 14 possessions.  They punted or turned it over on 9 of them and scored on 5.  For the game, they converted 35% of their drives. 

Yes, but this is with only 3 down to work with.  Indy would be in 4 down territory for the entire field.

[JVides]

Yes, but this is with only 3 down to work with.  Indy would be in 4 down territory for the entire field.

I get that.  I understand it.  I don't necessarily fault Belechik for going for it on fourth down; I just say I wouldn't have (and I'm a very big proponent of going for it on 4th and short).  He gave his team 5 plays to win the game (one on offense and 4 on defense) rather than giving them 8,9, or 10 (if they had punted).  I know people trot out statistics saying he had an 80% chance of converting on 4th and only a 78% chance of winning if he didn't punt, or that at worst, going for it vs. punting is a statistical wash.  My answer to that is that if the statistics are close (and the extremely little analysis I've read indicates the probabilities are similar) then I pick the play that leaves Manning the farthest away from the goal line.  It's not about being "conservative", or "covering my ass" by making the play everyone thinks I should make.  It's about pinning the other team as far away as possible from my goal post and forcing Manning to burn me yet again in less than two minutes, because, contrary to public opinion, marching a team 75 yards in two minutes with only one time out is not easy, especially if the defense is taking away the sideline (as I'm sure the Pats would have).

I laud the Patsy coach for his guts, I just disagree with the thought process.

[Spider-Dan]

The best, most succinct analysis I've read so far:

"Would you rather bet on Brady, or against Manning?"

[jtex316]

  being results oriented is pretty bad.  for instance if i took a bet with someone that the next roll of a die will be a 6. A results oriented person will think it is a good bet if the roll is a 6 and a bad bet if it is 1-5.  whereas it is always a bad bet since over an infinite number of rolls i will lose 66% of all the money i bet.

...and just wait until you tell them that you will actually get a non-six number 83.33% of the time! At least you know that it's a bad long-term bet, so not all hope is lost

[Tepop84]

...and just wait until you tell them that you will actually get a non-six number 83.33% of the time! At least you know that it's a bad long-term bet, so not all hope is lost

I really hope you are trying to make fun of my post so I can correct you and make you feel like the tard you are.

[Brian Fein]

^^ Dude - we only have one rule and you violate it every day.  Cut it out.

[Tenshot13]

Here's just a suggestion Mods...you could use one of these....