Patriots lose to the Jets

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 hours ago, ViriLudant said:

True.

The Patriots lead the league, unfortunately, in games missed by players .

 

Losing Edleman is a stinker but he will probably be back for the Playoffs. Pats need him

[dw49]

8 hours ago, -JJ- said:

the intent on Belichick to KO after winning the coin toss was the defense was simply more effective than the offense at this point. That means if you hold the jets to 3 and out or close to it you only need a FG to win.

 

the odds were  slightly better with that strategy all things considered.  He had done this before with success.

 

 

If you gave that scenario to a mathematician that understood football , he would burst out laughing when you said the odds favored that.

 

1) BB said Slater did exactly what he was told to do. That's crazy stupid because he choose to kick and that gave the Jets the option of taking the wind. Why not defer and make sure you get the direction you want ?

2) The way the NFL rules are structured , only a monster wind could justify kicking off. Even if you feel you can hold the Jets to nothing , just score your FG and then stop them. What is so bad about the rule is if both teams kick a FG , it's sudden death and you want the ball next. THAT ALONE IS PLENTY OF reason to take the ball first .. even if you forget about a TD ending the game without you touching the ball.

 

This is a guy that figures he's a genius and overthinks the situation. There is no way in hell that the odds would ever favor this and that's why it's never done.You take the ball , it is so silly today the opposite because your defense was playing better. Now if there's a 40MPH wind , it might tilt the numbers to favor that. 

[Bad Morty]

8 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

If you gave that scenario to a mathematician that understood football , he would burst out laughing when you said the odds favored that.

 

1) BB said Slater did exactly what he was told to do. That's crazy stupid because he choose to kick and that gave the Jets the option of taking the wind. Why not defer and make sure you get the direction you want ?

2) The way the NFL rules are structured , only a monster wind could justify kicking off. Even if you feel you can hold the Jets to nothing , just score your FG and then stop them. What is so bad about the rule is if both teams kick a FG , it's sudden death and you want the ball next. THAT ALONE IS PLENTY OF reason to take the ball first .. even if you forget about a TD ending the game without you touching the ball.

 

This is a guy that figures he's a genius and overthinks the situation. There is no way in hell that the odds would ever favor this and that's why it's never done.You take the ball , it is so silly today the opposite because your defense was playing better. Now if there's a 40MPH wind , it might tilt the numbers to favor that. 

A mathemetician might go to the stats and see that since they changed the OT rules, the team that gets the ball first in OT has a record of 33-31-4...just a tick over 50%. So the notion that this was some "way out there horrible game losing decision" is just not supported by stats.

 

So let's look at the specifics of that game. In the fourth quarter, the Jets had 3 possessions...they went 3 and out on 2 of them, and they got 2 first downs before punting on the other one. The Patriots also had 3 possessions...a 3 and out, a drive with 3 first downs and a punt, and finally the tying TD drive. In that drive, they started in decent field position (their own 34) and had to convert 2 4th downs during the drive, one of them a highly improbable 4th and 9 conversion to Gronk. In other words, yes they scored, but they struggled for every yard...they didn't race down the field and demolish the Jets D.

 

So now we come to the coin flip in OT. If you are the Pats, you are considering the following:

 

1) If we take the ball first, we are likely starting on our own 20, our offense is depleted and struggling. If we don't do anything with the possession (very reasonable scenario), we are punting to the Jets and they only need to put 3 on the board to win.

 

2) If we give the ball up, the way our defense is playing it's not unreasonable to think that WE will pitch a 3 and out, force them to punt and then WE only need 3.

 

To me, unless you are highly confident in your ability to go 80 yards and score a TD, you have to be thinking that your D is going to see the field...by kicking off (versus punting to them from potentially deep in your own end), you are guaranteeing a touchback and telling your D "stop them from going 80 yards"...that's not at a ll a bad gamble the way that game was playing out. It didn't work, but so be it...even the best decisions sometimes don't work.

[dw49]

2 minutes ago, Bad Morty said:

A mathemetician might go to the stats and see that since they changed the OT rules, the team that gets the ball first in OT has a record of 33-31-4...just a tick over 50%. So the notion that this was some "way out there horrible game losing decision" is just not supported by stats.

 

So let's look at the specifics of that game. In the fourth quarter, the Jets had 3 possessions...they went 3 and out on 2 of them, and they got 2 first downs before punting on the other one. The Patriots also had 3 possessions...a 3 and out, a drive with 3 first downs and a punt, and finally the tying TD drive. In that drive, they started in decent field position (their own 34) and had to convert 2 4th downs during the drive, one of them a highly improbable 4th and 9 conversion to Gronk. In other words, yes they scored, but they struggled for every yard...they didn't race down the field and demolish the Jets D.

 

So now we come to the coin flip in OT. If you are the Pats, you are considering the following:

 

1) If we take the ball first, we are likely starting on our own 20, our offense is depleted and struggling. If we don't do anything with the possession (very reasonable scenario), we are punting to the Jets and they only need to put 3 on the board to win.

 

2) If we give the ball up, the way our defense is playing it's not unreasonable to think that WE will pitch a 3 and out, force them to punt and then WE only need 3.

 

To me, unless you are highly confident in your ability to go 80 yards and score a TD, you have to be thinking that your D is going to see the field...by kicking off (versus punting to them from potentially deep in your own end), you are guaranteeing a touchback and telling your D "stop them from going 80 yards"...that's not at a ll a bad gamble the way that game was playing out. It didn't work, but so be it...even the best decisions sometimes don't work.

 

 

I lived with odds and stats . Spent a lot of time counting cards in Atlantic city in the 80's. I know the odds and %'s of all other casino games as I spent years playing them also. My son has done nothing but play poker sine he graduated college 15 years ago. What I'm building up to is not that I'm all that smart. What I can tell you is there is a "phenomenon" is gambling know as variance. For instance , I lost of around 15 straight trips when the odds were in my favor. My son went through a solid 14-18 months of incredible "bad beats" one after the other while losing well into the 6 figures before that horrible streak ended. It didn't matter that the odds were highly in his favor . Proof of that is the fact that he's made very good money over many years.

 

Point of this is "variance" would apply to things like this also. So my point of the above is that there is no way less than 70 games is enough to establish that there is no advantage to getting the ball first. That said the problem I have with BB's decision is that this seems to dismiss the fact that FG's are often exchanged in the first 2 possessions . Then it's sudden death. The only way this scenario (BB's) makes sense is if he's sure his team can't flip field position. That certainly doesn't justify doing what he did. I mean if your defense is that good , worst case scenario is you punt and now you have to hold them. If you do you get 2 chances to their one to kick a winning FG.

Christ , he didn't even defer and gives them the ball and the wind. 

 

Why this is never done is because it is no doubt wrong.

[-JJ-]

13 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

I lived with odds and stats . Spent a lot of time counting cards in Atlantic city in the 80's. I know the odds and %'s of all other casino games as I spent years playing them also. My son has done nothing but play poker sine he graduated college 15 years ago. What I'm building up to is not that I'm all that smart. What I can tell you is there is a "phenomenon" is gambling know as variance. For instance , I lost of around 15 straight trips when the odds were in my favor. My son went through a solid 14-18 months of incredible "bad beats" one after the other while losing well into the 6 figures before that horrible streak ended. It didn't matter that the odds were highly in his favor . Proof of that is the fact that he's made very good money over many years.

 

Point of this is "variance" would apply to things like this also. So my point of the above is that there is no way less than 70 games is enough to establish that there is no advantage to getting the ball first. That said the problem I have with BB's decision is that this seems to dismiss the fact that FG's are often exchanged in the first 2 possessions . Then it's sudden death. The only way this scenario (BB's) makes sense is if he's sure his team can't flip field position. That certainly doesn't justify doing what he did. I mean if your defense is that good , worst case scenario is you punt and now you have to hold them. If you do you get 2 chances to their one to kick a winning FG.

Christ , he didn't even defer and gives them the ball and the wind. 

 

Why this is never done is because it is no doubt wrong.

Morty explained it perfect. The odds I was pointing wasn't paper odds but BB's gut odds based on the current status of the team at OT. As Morty said they had to get two 4th down conversions just to get to OT.

 

It could go either way but there was a valid reason to do what he did. AND- he had done that once before with SUCCESS. It just depends on the situation at the time.

 

Also the defense wasn't perfect good, just much better than the offense.

[Bad Morty]

8 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

I lived with odds and stats . Spent a lot of time counting cards in Atlantic city in the 80's. I know the odds and %'s of all other casino games as I spent years playing them also. My son has done nothing but play poker sine he graduated college 15 years ago. What I'm building up to is not that I'm all that smart. What I can tell you is there is a "phenomenon" is gambling know as variance. For instance , I lost of around 15 straight trips when the odds were in my favor. My son went through a solid 14-18 months of incredible "bad beats" one after the other while losing well into the 6 figures before that horrible streak ended. It didn't matter that the odds were highly in his favor . Proof of that is the fact that he's made very good money over many years.

 

Point of this is "variance" would apply to things like this also. So my point of the above is that there is no way less than 70 games is enough to establish that there is no advantage to getting the ball first. That said the problem I have with BB's decision is that this seems to dismiss the fact that FG's are often exchanged in the first 2 possessions . Then it's sudden death. The only way this scenario (BB's) makes sense is if he's sure his team can't flip field position. That certainly doesn't justify doing what he did. I mean if your defense is that good , worst case scenario is you punt and now you have to hold them. If you do you get 2 chances to their one to kick a winning FG.

Christ , he didn't even defer and gives them the ball and the wind. 

 

Why this is never done is because it is no doubt wrong.

 

I don't think you can equate the odds on a card game (which is pure random chance) to the odds on a sporting event involving human beings and widely varying circumstances. I fully understand the logic and the reasoning behind taking the ball first, because that is the ONLY scenario that has as one of its outcomes the possibility that your defense will never have to take the field because your offense could end the game with a TD. So I really think the decision boils down entirely on what odds you think you have of going the length of the field for a TD on the first drive.

 

Let me ask it this way...if you knew in advance (we're playing pretend here) that you were going to go 3 and out after taking the ball, would it change your decision, and if so, why?

 

For me, it DEFINITELY would change my decision for the following reason...if I punt after a 3 and out, my punter is standing inside the 20 and they are going to get the ball most likely at their own 30 in the best case, needing to only go 35 yards to get into position to win. Compare that to putting the D on the field first and now you are asking your D only to stop them from going 80 for a TD.

 

That is the logic...I think Bill assessed his chances of ending the game on the first drive to be pretty slim...and I don't think that was a bad guess given how it had gone.

[dw49]

34 minutes ago, Bad Morty said:

 

I don't think you can equate the odds on a card game (which is pure random chance) to the odds on a sporting event involving human beings and widely varying circumstances. I fully understand the logic and the reasoning behind taking the ball first, because that is the ONLY scenario that has as one of its outcomes the possibility that your defense will never have to take the field because your offense could end the game with a TD. So I really think the decision boils down entirely on what odds you think you have of going the length of the field for a TD on the first drive.

 

Let me ask it this way...if you knew in advance (we're playing pretend here) that you were going to go 3 and out after taking the ball, would it change your decision, and if so, why?

 

For me, it DEFINITELY would change my decision for the following reason...if I punt after a 3 and out, my punter is standing inside the 20 and they are going to get the ball most likely at their own 30 in the best case, needing to only go 35 yards to get into position to win. Compare that to putting the D on the field first and now you are asking your D only to stop them from going 80 for a TD.

 

That is the logic...I think Bill assessed his chances of ending the game on the first drive to be pretty slim...and I don't think that was a bad guess given how it had gone.

 

 

The odds of a professional poker player player poker are not random. Nor is that of a person that counts cards. Granted the cards are dealt out "randomly" but but I was referring to is a person that has probably a 3% edge on the game can lose of thousands of hands.That's called "variance ." The professional will no about win in the long run as the odds have to play out at some point in time. My point is that it (a bad run ) can occur over thousands and thousands of hands. You can compare that to what you brought forward  .. a sample group of 70 games. I'm not trying to act like I'm some brilliant mathematician but what I've said is 100% correct.

 

As to your question , I thought I pretty much explained what I thought of that in my last post. By "flipping field position is the same as what you describe." We're assuming a start at the 20 and not moving the ball .. correct ?

 

I said....

 

" The only way this scenario (BB's) makes sense is if he's sure his team can't flip field position. That certainly doesn't justify doing what he did. I mean if your defense is that good , worst case scenario is you punt and now you have to hold them. If you do you get 2 chances to their one to kick a winning FG."

[dw49]

39 minutes ago, -JJ- said:

Morty explained it perfect. The odds I was pointing wasn't paper odds but BB's gut odds based on the current status of the team at OT. As Morty said they had to get two 4th down conversions just to get to OT.

 

It could go either way but there was a valid reason to do what he did. AND- he had done that once before with SUCCESS. It just depends on the situation at the time.

 

Also the defense wasn't perfect good, just much better than the offense.

 

Gut odds ? And because they had to convert 2 4th downs earlier , it makes this against all logic correct ? And giving the Jets the wind to boot ? How do you and Morrt explain that one. Maybe one of his coaches had really bad gas and he wanted the smell to blow away from him. 

 

It would have to be something like gale force winds to justify kicking the ball. It's easy to say gut feeling and "situations" but give this to somebody that you know understands odds and probabilities and they will belly laugh .

 

 

[Bad Morty]

8 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

 

The odds of a professional poker player player poker are not random. Nor is that of a person that counts cards. Granted the cards are dealt out "randomly" but but I was referring to is a person that has probably a 3% edge on the game can lose of thousands of hands.That's called "variance ." The professional will no about win in the long run as the odds have to play out at some point in time. My point is that it (a bad run ) can occur over thousands and thousands of hands. You can compare that to what you brought forward  .. a sample group of 70 games. I'm not trying to act like I'm some brilliant mathematician but what I've said is 100% correct.

 

As to your question , I thought I pretty much explained what I thought of that in my last post. By "flipping field position is the same as what you describe." We're assuming a start at the 20 and not moving the ball .. correct ?

 

I said....

 

" The only way this scenario (BB's) makes sense is if he's sure his team can't flip field position. That certainly doesn't justify doing what he did. I mean if your defense is that good , worst case scenario is you punt and now you have to hold them. If you do you get 2 chances to their one to kick a winning FG."

Again - I hear what you are saying and I've taken a statistics course or two in my life. But there's really not much equivalency between a card game and a football game. If you are the best at counting cards, then you can calculate in your head exactly what the probability is of you getting a particular card and that probability is preciset. In other words, if you have a 75% chance of drawing a jack, then those are your odds and nothing can change them. You may not draw a jack, as there is of course a 25% chance you won't...that's just bad luck. But the odds are what they are and it's pure math.

 

In football (or any sport), there is no equivalency to this. You can't put precise mathematical odds on the probable outcome of various decisions, because at any point in time there are too many unpredictable things that can happen to affect the eventual outcome....the ball bounces left instead of right...the receiver falls down and the ball lands in the defensive players hand...the ref throws a flag....etc etc and on and on.

 

I think it's a good sports argument and there is merit to both sides, but I reject the characterization of this decision as a "brain fart"...because that implies that choosing to kick the ball to start OT is an obvious mistake with a very high likelihood that it will lead to a loss. Again - 33-31-4 is the record of teams taking the ball first in OT. You claim that isn't a big enough sample...we'll have to agree to disagree on that. But the way I look at it is this...would it have been a "jaw dropping/who ever could have seen THAT coming??" scenario if the Patriots had stopped the Jets D and forced a punt? You can't say that based on the way the game had been played. In fact, I'd argue that it was a lot MORE likely that they'd have forced a punt than allowed the Jets to score a TD. It's not as cut and dry as I think you are trying to make it.

[southwest1]

Before I forget, I just wanna say that even though Kembrell T-homkins got injured on the field as a Jets WR & that he spent time in NE, I thought it was cool that several Pats players paid respect to him & that Bill Belichick shook his hand. Classy move Foxboro. I really admired that. Your team deserves to be praised for that noble act of kindness. 

 

Contrary to popular belief, not every NFL fan views your organization as evil. I, for one, don't. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

I don't think the Pats decision to kick was necessarily a bad one. Teams that kick first in OT almost still win half the time. If it was sudden death than the decision would make no sense but hold them to a FG you can then win with a TD. I would've still took the ball first with Tom though.

[southwest1]

Bill Belichick with 4 rings under his tenure in Massachusetts has earned the cache, clout, & right to do whatever the hades he wants on a football field decision wise without being questioned or 2nd guessed. 

 

Considering that Brady just tied the game up on a touchdown pass to White, I found it bizarre that Bill chose not to let Brady put the final nail in the coffin unless he was worried that the Jets pass rush was hitting Tom too much especially since they we standing up vs getting into a traditional crouched position making it harder for #12 to determine where to slide his protection. I don't know. 

 

Again, I'm not slamming Bill. All I'm saying is this: If I'm the HC for NE & I've got an opportunity to secure a #1 spot in the AFC playoff picture, I'm putting the hammer down & telling my HOF QB to win the darn game with his hot hand. Don't give me statistical breakdowns just march down the field & take the game by force like I've seen Brady do a million times before out of habit because the coaching staff calls him "The Ninja" for a reason: Brady's earned it. 

 

Just look at how Brady almost beat Philly in week 13 35-28. He darn near brought them back by himself. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

Bill Belichick with 4 rings under his tenure in Massachusetts has earned the cache, clout, & right to do whatever the hades he wants on a football field decision wise without being questioned or 2nd guessed. 

 

Considering that Brady just tied the game up on a touchdown pass to White, I found it bizarre that Bill chose not to let Brady put the final nail in the coffin unless he was worried that the Jets pass rush was hitting Tom too much especially since they we standing up vs getting into a traditional crouched position making it harder for #12 to determine where to slide his protection. I don't know. 

 

Again, I'm not slamming Bill. All I'm saying is this: If I'm the HC for NE & I've got an opportunity to secure a #1 spot in the AFC playoff picture, I'm putting the hammer down & telling my HOF QB to win the darn game with his hot hand. Don't give me statistical breakdowns just march down the field & take the game by force like I've seen Brady do a million times before out of habit because the coaching staff calls him "The Ninja" for a reason: Brady's earned it. 

Yeah if I got Tom, I am taking the ball. Who am I to 2nd guess a Football God though LOL.

[southwest1]

11 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah if I got Tom, I am taking the ball. Who am I to 2nd guess a Football God though LOL.

Exactly, plus it's against your arch nemesis division foe Gang Green man. 

 

It's like asking a Raiders fan in the Black Hole if they wanna see the Chargers pulverized or me if I wanna see Dallas collapse in a comeback defeat that demoralizes them for years...Hades yeah! 

 

When it's a despised adversary, you bring out the big guns baby. No time to get conservative & reserved now. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

Exactly, plus it's against your arch nemesis division foe Gang Green man. 

 

It's like asking a Raiders fan in the Black Hole if they wanna see the Chargers pulverized or me if I wanna see Dallas collapse in a comeback defeat that demoralizes them for years...Hades yeah! 

 

When it's a despised adversary, you bring out the big guns baby. No time to get conservative & reserved now. 

Jets have played the Pats tough over the years. They usually don't win but a lot of games have been close and they did beat them in Foxboro in the Playoffs in 2010. Those 2 fanbases hate each other too. I get a kick out of reading Posts over at ESPN when those 2 play. It gets nasty!

[southwest1]

10 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Jets have played the Pats tough over the years. They usually don't win but a lot of games have been close and they did beat them in Foxboro in the Playoffs in 2010. Those 2 fanbases hate each other too. I get a kick out of reading Posts over at ESPN when those 2 play. It gets nasty!

Mutual animosity makes for riveting TV doesn't it? LOL! 

 

The other thing is this: The Dolphins always give NE fits going back to when WR Wes Welker was there. Miami is like Pittsburgh to INDY under the Luck regime: Always a thorn in our side. Playoff positioning is a minor detail to NE, but say god forbid Gronk goes down for the season next week NE is in a world of hurt.  

 

Just to be clear, I like Gronk & wish him no injuries. The fins have nothing to lose & playing upset spoiler is fun for a team who's season is over. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

Mutual animosity makes for riveting TV doesn't it? LOL! 

 

The other thing is this: The Dolphins always give NE fits going back to when WR Wes Welker was there. Miami is like Pittsburgh to INDY under the Luck regime: Always a thorn in our side. Playoff positioning is a minor detail to NE, but say god forbid Gronk goes down for the season next week NE is in a world of hurt.  

 

Just to be clear, I like Gronk & wish him no injuries. The fins have nothing to lose & playing upset spoiler is fun for a team who's season is over. 

If for some reason the Pats lose Sunday and the Broncos win, Broncos would get HFA so the Pats are playing for something. The Dolphins usually play them good in Miami as well. In 2013 Miami beat them and that 1 loss gave the Broncos HFA.

[Bad Morty]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I don't think the Pats decision to kick was necessarily a bad one. Teams that kick first in OT almost still win half the time. If it was sudden death than the decision would make no sense but hold them to a FG you can then win with a TD. I would've still took the ball first with Tom though.

Makes perfect sense. And yes clearly prior to the rule change you ALWAYS take the ball first. But I think you can make a pretty equal case in this game for either decision. Clearly, giving the ball to Brady even with a highly depleted offense is a decision that anyone would have a hard time criticizing. But in that particular game, the defense had scored just as many TD's as the offense (1 each). For those of us used to seeing the Pats offense flying down the field as though it were a 7 on 7 drill, this was a very different story...in fact I would go out on a limb and say that this was the most ineffective offensive performance of the year, thanks to the combination of the Jets very talented and motivated defense and the Pats very injury depleted offense. Yes they scored on the final drive...but in the back of my mind I'm thinking the Jets (like many teams do) went a little bit softer there trying to keep everything in front of them with the 7 point lead and time winding down. They didn't bring as much pressure on that drive. At any rate, they made the call and it didn't work out, so...that's that.

[Bad Morty]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If for some reason the Pats lose Sunday and the Broncos win, Broncos would get HFA so the Pats are playing for something. The Dolphins usually play them good in Miami as well. In 2013 Miami beat them and that 1 loss gave the Broncos HFA.

eh...we'll see. That Dolphin team is an utter train wreck...lame duck coach, players wives calling out the QB...hard to believe they have much fight in them.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Bad Morty said:

eh...we'll see. That Dolphin team is an utter train wreck...lame duck coach, players wives calling out the QB...hard to believe they have much fight in them.

I think Patriots will win. Heck we just beat them with Charlie at QB LOL

[JimJaime]

I heard (on 98.5 on Monday Morning) that one of the deciding factors was that Mason (an Olineman) got hurt on the TD Drive was possibly a reason for the decision to kick. If so DAMN I think the Pats were going to have to use Williams (3rd TE) as a Lineman.

[dw49]

3 hours ago, Bad Morty said:

Again - I hear what you are saying and I've taken a statistics course or two in my life. But there's really not much equivalency between a card game and a football game. If you are the best at counting cards, then you can calculate in your head exactly what the probability is of you getting a particular card and that probability is preciset. In other words, if you have a 75% chance of drawing a jack, then those are your odds and nothing can change them. You may not draw a jack, as there is of course a 25% chance you won't...that's just bad luck. But the odds are what they are and it's pure math.

 

In football (or any sport), there is no equivalency to this. You can't put precise mathematical odds on the probable outcome of various decisions, because at any point in time there are too many unpredictable things that can happen to affect the eventual outcome....the ball bounces left instead of right...the receiver falls down and the ball lands in the defensive players hand...the ref throws a flag....etc etc and on and on.

 

I think it's a good sports argument and there is merit to both sides, but I reject the characterization of this decision as a "brain fart"...because that implies that choosing to kick the ball to start OT is an obvious mistake with a very high likelihood that it will lead to a loss. Again - 33-31-4 is the record of teams taking the ball first in OT. You claim that isn't a big enough sample...we'll have to agree to disagree on that. But the way I look at it is this...would it have been a "jaw dropping/who ever could have seen THAT coming??" scenario if the Patriots had stopped the Jets D and forced a punt? You can't say that based on the way the game had been played. In fact, I'd argue that it was a lot MORE likely that they'd have forced a punt than allowed the Jets to score a TD. It's not as cut and dry as I think you are trying to make it.

 

Cool ... we agree to disagree. But the correlation I was trying to draw with cards and football was simply probability . It can also be explained like this. In blackjack , if you stay on 16 vs a 7 , you are making a horrible mistake. If you play that hand like a million times so there is no chance that the actual odds didn't happen , it would be something like this... You win 26% of the time hitting. You win 17% of the time by staying. I made those numbers up. On the other hand staying on 16 vs a 10 is almost an even play. It might be like win 51 % by hitting and 49% by staying.

 

So what you have there is you always do the above if you are playing basic stategy. If you are counting , it would take a very high positive count to stay on 16vs a 7 . But it would just take a deck a little bit rich in face cards to stay on 16 vs the 10. The way you can apply that to football is , unless you have some really mitigating circumstances , you have to make the decision that gives you the best probability to win. You're correct when you say you can't put a real legitimate number on the odds of the Jets scoring a TD. You have to enter a number you think is appropriate and then enter numbers that are appropriate for both teams either kicking a FG or both teams not kicking a FG. Then you work with those numbers. 

 

IMO , the reasons BB used to kick the ball , which was pretty much he was afraid of not flipping field position, no way in heck justified kicking. How about the odds of a good return or a personal foul on the Jets ? How about figuring in you have what you guys all claim is the greatest QB of all time as a QB. Now if he was playing against a weak armed QB in a wind storm , I'm all ears.

 

[JimJaime]

1 minute ago, dw49 said:

 

 

 

IMO , the reasons BB used to kick the ball , which was pretty much he was afraid of not flipping field position, no way in heck justified kicking. How about the odds of a good return or a personal foul on the Jets ? How about figuring in you have what you guys all claim is the greatest QB of all time as a QB. Now if he was playing against a weak armed QB in a wind storm , I'm all ears.

 

Ahh he just did it to make the Steelers out of the playoffs. lmbo  But seriously I think BB outsmarted himself, it happens if it had worked we are calling him a genius yet again. You always put the ball in your QB's hands especially one of the GOAT and sure fire 1st ballot HOFer and lets not forget the freakishly talented TE we have either. 

[dw49]

10 minutes ago, JimJaime said:

Ahh he just did it to make the Steelers out of the playoffs. lmbo  But seriously I think BB outsmarted himself, it happens if it had worked we are calling him a genius yet again. You always put the ball in your QB's hands especially one of the GOAT and sure fire 1st ballot HOFer and lets not forget the freakishly talented TE we have either. 

 

 

I don't really belly laugh at the Steeler thing. It makes more sense than kicking the ball and even letting the Jets have the wind. However I thought the same as you.. he just tried to do the "genius" thing and it bit him in the coulee .

[dw49]

1 hour ago, Bad Morty said:

eh...we'll see. That Dolphin team is an utter train wreck...lame duck coach, players wives calling out the QB...hard to believe they have much fight in them.

 

Now on this one we agree. The chance of Miami beating NE and possibly moving them from the 1 seed to the 2 seed is minuscule .

[Bad Morty]

I actually haven't even read Bill's "explanation" for the decision, and frankly even if I had, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it. I kind of doubt he'd give the media a straight up answer to any type of strategy question. To me, the least confusing and most logical explanation is that he didn't like the offense's chances of scoring from the 20 (yes...I understand the possibility of a kick return and better starting point, but you know that that play has been pretty much eliminated from the game) and he thought his best chance to win was to pin them on a kickoff, force a 3 and out, get a better starting point via a punt, and then only need a short field to win the game given his kicker. Again - I can see disagreeing with the strategy in favor of "give Brady the damn ball"...but this wasn't anything close to Grady Little leaving Pedro in for the 7th or (not to jab at you Colts fans) the fake punt...neither of those decisions had any defensible logic behind them.

 

 

[JimJaime]

11 minutes ago, Bad Morty said:

I actually haven't even read Bill's "explanation" for the decision, and frankly even if I had, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it. I kind of doubt he'd give the media a straight up answer to any type of strategy question. To me, the least confusing and most logical explanation is that he didn't like the offense's chances of scoring from the 20 (yes...I understand the possibility of a kick return and better starting point, but you know that that play has been pretty much eliminated from the game) and he thought his best chance to win was to pin them on a kickoff, force a 3 and out, get a better starting point via a punt, and then only need a short field to win the game given his kicker. Again - I can see disagreeing with the strategy in favor of "give Brady the damn ball"...but this wasn't anything close to Grady Little leaving Pedro in for the 7th or (not to jab at you Colts fans) the fake punt...neither of those decisions had any defensible logic behind them.

 

 

No it was a roll of the dice that failed, I think most of us Pats fans just cant believe as you said you dont put the ball in the hands of the best player on BOTH sides aka Brady.. Man is as clutch as Big Papa. lol

[Bad Morty]

36 minutes ago, JimJaime said:

No it was a roll of the dice that failed, I think most of us Pats fans just cant believe as you said you dont put the ball in the hands of the best player on BOTH sides aka Brady.. Man is as clutch as Big Papa. lol

 

Yeah...but he had so little to work with on Sunday. You can be as clutch as you want, but if  you have no running back, your offensive line is struggling to protect, and your receivers aren't getting open, then it's not going to matter much. I guess if I were coaching, my philosophy would be to put my best unit on the field first. If the '85 Bears were playing today, I would argue that they should defer every time.

[JimJaime]

49 minutes ago, Bad Morty said:

 

Yeah...but he had so little to work with on Sunday. You can be as clutch as you want, but if  you have no running back, your offensive line is struggling to protect, and your receivers aren't getting open, then it's not going to matter much. I guess if I were coaching, my philosophy would be to put my best unit on the field first. If the '85 Bears were playing today, I would argue that they should defer every time.

Very true, I just feel you always give the ball to Jordan (lol) and Brady is the Jordan of the Pats he has time and time again found a way to win games they had no reason to even be in. (and Sunday the Jets completely outplayed the Pats but were never able make that key big play to knock them out.)

[LJpalmbeacher2]

On 12/27/2015 at 4:40 PM, Crofan said:

Or Bill decided to eliminate Steelers

I actually had several people tell me that.

 

[Jules]

Pats will beat the Dolphins, if they don't its the shocker of the year to me almost. Miami is terrible.

 

What I am more interested in is seeing how the Jets do in Buffalo. Rex Ryan will want to make it a goal this year to sweep the Jets and last time the Jets played the Pats they lost the following week with almost a hangover type of look.

[amfootball]

6 hours ago, Jules said:

Pats will beat the Dolphins, if they don't its the shocker of the year to me almost. Miami is terrible.

 

What I am more interested in is seeing how the Jets do in Buffalo. Rex Ryan will want to make it a goal this year to sweep the Jets and last time the Jets played the Pats they lost the following week with almost a hangover type of look.

Rex is calling the game his Super Bowl. lol. You can always count on him for intense hyperbole.

 

The Bills do not have McCoy which could be big and the Jets have just been inching along on offense for several weeks now. I really think the game is a toss up. It is in Buffalo so the crowd will be roaring.