Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Losses like today are the hardest to accept.


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, TheLegend87 said:

Games you should have won but didn't are always the toughest to accept, especially one that ends your season. We all watched the game and saw all the stupid decisions by Reich, and all the missed opportunities the Colts missed out on. I feel terrible for Philip Rivers because he played one hell of a game. The defense played one hell of a game. The offensive line played one hell of a game. Frank Reich refusing to take the points was *ic. Then Blankenship missing that FG and Turay going offsides also factored in. Yes, Rivers missed a few passes where he had a guy wide open and the there was quite a few wide open passes dropped. No one gave the Colts a chance and they handed that game to Buffalo. I don't get all the Buffalo hype though. They're very beatable. Heading into the off-season is going to be a head scratcher because we literally have no idea what direction this team is headed in, especially at the QB position. It was a fun season why it lasted and I can't wait until next year. I hope you all have a positive and safe off-season. I'll be looking forward to getting back into football season when things pick back up again.

 

Good take, we had some rookie jitters, Rivers missed a few throws in key situations. So did the Bill's players. I truly feel Frank let us down. His aggression and challenging the non fumble really hurt us. If it was Frank's first year or he hadn't made poor decisions before I could forgive the guy. But he stuck with Vinny for so long, he abandons what's working far too often, and consistently shows poor game managing skills. He a great leader speech guy and designs great plays, but has no business calling them. For me he has earned the title Roulette Reich, week in and week out he pulls the trigger and kills the team.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you.  It is weird because usually you are able to point to a specific unit that didn’t play well as a specific reason for a loss, but this was more bizarre high risk decision making along with gaffes on 2-3 plays and lack of getting that  critical turnover (despite being real close on a couple of plays) which ultimately lost us the game.

 

We had every opportunity to beat them, but I do think that there are areas for improvement in every facet of the team in order to be true SB contenders.  I believe that Ballard will get us there.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

That will be difficult without a Franchise/Elite QB & a wreckless incompetent HC.

Frank cost us the game. My analytics say if you have more points than the other team, you win 100% of the time. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

That will be difficult without a Franchise/Elite QB & a wreckless incompetent HC.

People will keep talking about a QB, like they didn't watch the game at all. Rivers was phenomenal today, literally can't put hardly anything on him.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NorthernColt said:

People will keep talking about a QB, like they didn't watch the game at all. Rivers was phenomenal today, literally can't put hardly anything on him.

 

I wasn't blaming Rivers for the loss. But Rivers was easily outplayed by Allen. The game looked much easier for Allen than Rivers. To compete for championships you need a elite QB to elevate your team OR a good HC to make good game plans, decisions etc... to maximize all of the teams talents, to possibly make up the Disadvantage at the QB position.  

Going forward its doubtful we have the right QB or HC for SB Championships.

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TheLegend87 said:

Games you should have won but didn't are always the toughest to accept, especially one that ends your season. We all watched the game and saw all the stupid decisions by Reich, and all the missed opportunities the Colts missed out on. I feel terrible for Philip Rivers because he played one hell of a game. The defense played one hell of a game. The offensive line played one hell of a game. Frank Reich refusing to take the points was *ic. Then Blankenship missing that FG and Turay going offsides also factored in. Yes, Rivers missed a few passes where he had a guy wide open and the there was quite a few wide open passes dropped. No one gave the Colts a chance and they handed that game to Buffalo. I don't get all the Buffalo hype though. They're very beatable. Heading into the off-season is going to be a head scratcher because we literally have no idea what direction this team is headed in, especially at the QB position. It was a fun season why it lasted and I can't wait until next year. I hope you all have a positive and safe off-season. I'll be looking forward to getting back into football season when things pick back up again.

 

 

Colts had a great gameplan and the Bills D was very focused on stopping the run whoch allowed Rivers to complete a bunch of short passes to keep the chains moving. However for 3 quarters the Colts didn't run the ball well at all. Bills held them to under 3 YPC. 

 

The Colts only started running the ball well when the Bills started playing pass with them down 14 in the 4th quarter and they popped off 3 big runs which really skewed the numbers to make it look like they ran the ball well when that wasn't the case for most of the day.

 

The hype about the Bills is pretty much because we didn't play our best game on D it was very inconsistent overall, the offensive playcalling was not great for much of the day, the Colts pretty much played their A game on both sides of the ball and executed at a high level for the most part but we can still overcome all of that on any given day because we have Josh Allen.  Josh Allen can simply take over the game and put the team on his back and based on the number of excellent defensive coordinators and head coaches he faced this year there aren't really many answers as to how to stop it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NorthernColt said:

People will keep talking about a QB, like they didn't watch the game at all. Rivers was phenomenal today, literally can't put hardly anything on him.


He was very good.  But the weaknesses in his game are what keeps this team from being great.  His lack of mobility and the long ball throws held us back.  
 

Yes, he was a light years improvement over Jacoby and he’s probably one of the best mentally.  Too bad we can’t put that brain into Eason’s body...

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

I wasn't blaming Rivers for the loss. But Rivers was easily outplayed by Allen. The game looked much easier for Allen than Rivers. To compete for championships you need a elite QB to elevate your team OR a good HC to make good game plans, decisions etc... to maximize all of the teams talents, to possibly make up the Disadvantage at the QB position.  

Going forward its doubtful we have the right QB or HC for SB Championships.

 

 

100%, its just hard to give a guy % for not being literally a top 3 QB in the game. He's not, but you can still win with different formulas of team building.

Just now, NorthernColt said:

 

100%, its just hard to give a guy % for not being literally a top 3 QB in the game. He's not, but you can still win with different formulas of team building.

Not saying we shouldn't look for an upgrade either, I just dont think you could fault him at all for last night.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Smonroe said:


He was very good.  But the weaknesses in his game are what keeps this team from being great.  His lack of mobility and the long ball throws held us back.  
 

Yes, he was a light years improvement over Jacoby and he’s probably one of the best mentally.  Too bad we can’t put that brain into Eason’s body...

Where is Dr. frankenstein when you need him? 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Smonroe said:


He was very good.  But the weaknesses in his game are what keeps this team from being great.  His lack of mobility and the long ball throws held us back.  
 

Yes, he was a light years improvement over Jacoby and he’s probably one of the best mentally.  Too bad we can’t put that brain into Eason’s body...

 

Rivers was 100%. However that 100% was for a 39yr old with his limitations physically. Red zone suffered because there're things he just can't do. Deep game suffered because there're things he can't do. The last drive suffered because there're things he can't do (and that bit has always been with him...in the last 2mins, he has never been a killer like Luck). He couldn't throw to the hashes because, well, there are things he can't do.

Rivers has been an outstanding success. I've had fun watching him, and i can see a place for him to return however you nailed it. Yesterday was the ceiling with him, it led to almost 500 yards of offense which was superb but that extra bit you need, he just doesn't have it. It is what it is. And Chris Ballard knows it, i promise you this.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

C’mon guys... Wild Thing makes the field goal, it’s probably a different story. We score on all those downs inside the frickin’ 5 yard line, definitely a different story. A couple players don’t have *-hands.... man, we were close. I’m proud of our guys. Yes, you can always get better, but we have a great foundation. I hope we go into next season with Rivers/Eason after a great draft/FA and keep rollin’.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TheLegend87 said:

Games you should have won but didn't are always the toughest to accept, especially one that ends your season. We all watched the game and saw all the stupid decisions by Reich, and all the missed opportunities the Colts missed out on. I feel terrible for Philip Rivers because he played one hell of a game. The defense played one hell of a game. The offensive line played one hell of a game. Frank Reich refusing to take the points was *ic. Then Blankenship missing that FG and Turay going offsides also factored in. Yes, Rivers missed a few passes where he had a guy wide open and the there was quite a few wide open passes dropped. No one gave the Colts a chance and they handed that game to Buffalo. I don't get all the Buffalo hype though. They're very beatable. Heading into the off-season is going to be a head scratcher because we literally have no idea what direction this team is headed in, especially at the QB position. It was a fun season why it lasted and I can't wait until next year. I hope you all have a positive and safe off-season. I'll be looking forward to getting back into football season when things pick back up again.

 

Actually I think u learn more about your team from a loss like this than if u would have won.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great conversation here. I also believe Rivers did the best he could for a 39 yr old QB that is debating retirement. I’m not going to lie and say I wasn’t envious when I saw some of the amazing/athletic passes Allen completed while going out of bounds or getting tackled, reminded me of Luck at times. Is Eason that guy? I hope so. I’m happy having Rivers back next year I think he could get the job done if the game planning plays to his abilities. On that note, Frank needs to stop calling plays, leave it to the OC.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Rivers was 100%. However that 100% was for a 39yr old with his limitations physically. Red zone suffered because there're things he just can't do. Deep game suffered because there're things he can't do. The last drive suffered because there're things he can't do (and that bit has always been with him...in the last 2mins, he has never been a killer like Luck). He couldn't throw to the hashes because, well, there are things he can't do.

Rivers has been an outstanding success. I've had fun watching him, and i can see a place for him to return however you nailed it. Yesterday was the ceiling with him, it led to almost 500 yards of offense which was superb but that extra bit you need, he just doesn't have it. It is what it is. And Chris Ballard knows it, i promise you this.

These are my biggest reasons why you can't waste another year with Rivers.  And I like Rivers.

 

But he cannot:

 

1. Run for yards and extend plays while passing on the run.  So many times in today's NFL you see Qbs doing that, like Jackson today and Allen yesterday, and it gives an offense so many more chances to move the ball compared to a standard drop back and throw play. 

 

2. He cannot throw the ball past 15-20 yards with any RPMs or SPIN.  That is why so many of his longer balls always look a tad late.  The ball takes forever to get there and it gives the D time to recover.  Notice yesterday on the long TD the Bills completed.  Allen threw it late, but because he has RPMs and SPIN?  The ball got there in time.  Rivers couldn't do that.  It is also a reason why we struggle in the redzone when the field is tighter.  He can't zip a ball into tight quarters.  It also cost us big time at the end of the game and is the third reason he can't continue....

 

3. He does not, nor has he ever really, have the ability to lead a team to a last minute fg or TD to win or tie a game.  Does anyone have any confidence in him doing that?  I don't.  And I think that has more to do with the above 2 reasons.  If he can't run or throw it to the sidelines.....it makes driving for a game winning score very difficult.

 

So if your starting NFL qb cannot do the above 3 things in today's NFL?  You have to move on.   The Colts are basically in win now mode.  Why waste more years?

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, StatesmanN said:

These are my biggest reasons why you can't waste another year with Rivers.  And I like Rivers.

 

But he cannot:

 

1. Run for yards and extend plays while passing on the run.  So many times in today's NFL you see Qbs doing that, like Jackson today and Allen yesterday, and it gives an offense so many more chances to move the ball compared to a standard drop back and throw play. 

 

2. He cannot throw the ball past 15-20 yards with any RPMs or SPIN.  That is why so many of his longer balls always look a tad late.  The ball takes forever to get there and it gives the D time to recover.  Notice yesterday on the long TD the Bills completed.  Allen threw it late, but because he has RPMs and SPIN?  The ball got there in time.  Rivers couldn't do that.  It is also a reason why we struggle in the redzone when the field is tighter.  He can't zip a ball into tight quarters.  It also cost us big time at the end of the game and is the third reason he can't continue....

 

3. He does not, nor has he ever really, have the ability to lead a team to a last minute fg or TD to win or tie a game.  Does anyone have any confidence in him doing that?  I don't.  And I think that has more to do with the above 2 reasons.  If he can't run or throw it to the sidelines.....it makes driving for a game winning score very difficult.

 

So if your starting NFL qb cannot do the above 3 things in today's NFL?  You have to move on.   The Colts are basically in win now mode.  Why waste more years?

 

 

Not saying I disagree with you, but who do you propose we replace him with? Eason seems to have a great arm but everything I’ve read on him says he doesn’t scramble and doesn’t do good under pressure. Is he the guy that takes us to the next level?

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, HOZER said:

Not saying I disagree with you, but who do you propose we replace him with? Eason seems to have a great arm but everything I’ve read on him says he doesn’t scramble and doesn’t do good under pressure. Is he the guy that takes us to the next level?

QB scouting is a.....game of smoke and mirrors? There're few 'cant miss prospects'. Indy has had two of them in the last two decades, and one SB to show for it.

This means, you roll with a guy who has a high ceiling but question marks. That's what KC did with Mahomes. The scouts have to do their due diligence on the guy's character. Then it's on Reich to bring him up. Give him a year if need be.

 

If I were doing this, I'd bring Rivers back for one more year, and IF they like any of the guys in this draft, now is the time to mortgage the farm. 

If they do not like anyone in the draft then you ask around about someone like Matt Stafford and buckle up for that ride for the next 2 seasons or so.

 

I don't think Eason is the solution. He doesn't have Rivers brain, and has almost all his negatives. The only plus he's got that Rivers doesn't is his arm. That arm can get you in and out of trouble.

 

I think Mr Ballard is drafting a QB in the top 15. I dont know how he makes it happen but I think he will. I think Rivers may be back also.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with this, it is better to bewell beaten than look back at the game and think what might have been. 

While on one hand we showed we can compete withthe Bills, it is very frustrating that we did not get over the line. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StatesmanN said:

These are my biggest reasons why you can't waste another year with Rivers.  And I like Rivers.

 

But he cannot:

 

1. Run for yards and extend plays while passing on the run.  So many times in today's NFL you see Qbs doing that, like Jackson today and Allen yesterday, and it gives an offense so many more chances to move the ball compared to a standard drop back and throw play. 

 

2. He cannot throw the ball past 15-20 yards with any RPMs or SPIN.  That is why so many of his longer balls always look a tad late.  The ball takes forever to get there and it gives the D time to recover.  Notice yesterday on the long TD the Bills completed.  Allen threw it late, but because he has RPMs and SPIN?  The ball got there in time.  Rivers couldn't do that.  It is also a reason why we struggle in the redzone when the field is tighter.  He can't zip a ball into tight quarters.  It also cost us big time at the end of the game and is the third reason he can't continue....

 

3. He does not, nor has he ever really, have the ability to lead a team to a last minute fg or TD to win or tie a game.  Does anyone have any confidence in him doing that?  I don't.  And I think that has more to do with the above 2 reasons.  If he can't run or throw it to the sidelines.....it makes driving for a game winning score very difficult.

 

So if your starting NFL qb cannot do the above 3 things in today's NFL?  You have to move on.   The Colts are basically in win now mode.  Why waste more years?

 

 

 

 

He's coming back for another year regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HOZER said:

Not saying I disagree with you, but who do you propose we replace him with? Eason seems to have a great arm but everything I’ve read on him says he doesn’t scramble and doesn’t do good under pressure. Is he the guy that takes us to the next level?

Stafford and if not him then Eason or a new draft pick.

Other choice would be Wentz but he would be the last choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StatesmanN said:

Probably.  Which is a huge mistake and brings back memories of Adam V.

 

 

I'm torn on this one. IMO , Buffalo crowed the LOS and that's why JT struggled a bit... much like Henry getting 40 yards on around 20 carries vs balt. I like a QB with some arm strength and Rivers doesn't have it. i really wish we signed Brady instead...

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

I'm torn on this one. IMO , Buffalo crowed the LOS and that's why JT struggled a bit... much like Henry getting 40 yards on around 20 carries vs balt. I like a QB with some arm strength and Rivers doesn't have it. i really wish we signed Brady instead...

I said the same to my wife yesterday.

 

Brady is a proven winner and his arm strength and ability to move is heads and tails above Rivers. 

 

If you were going to bring in an old Veteran, I don't know how you don't get perhaps the greatest qb of all time.  And he can still zip the ball in there.

 

If Brady was qb imo the Colts are co favs with the Chiefs to win the SB this year.

 

What a wasted opp.  I get why.  Because of the Colts/Pats rivalry.  But that was the  move. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, King Colt said:

Four dropped critical passes (2 by Taylor) and a missed FG. Not the HC's fault. Oh, and don't forget the no call on the Indy fumble

That happens every game for every team.  It is the plays that rise above the average that separate the winners from the losers.

 

Allen made those yesterday with this legs and arm strength.

 

Rivers can't do that.  He can still play standard ABC football just fine.  But he can't play elite football.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, StatesmanN said:

I said the same to my wife yesterday.

 

Brady is a proven winner and his arm strength and ability to move is heads and tails above Rivers. 

 

If you were going to bring in an old Veteran, I don't know how you don't get perhaps the greatest qb of all time.  And he can still zip the ball in there.

 

If Brady was qb imo the Colts are co favs with the Chiefs to win the SB this year.

 

What a wasted opp.  I get why.  Because of the Colts/Pats rivalry.  But that was the  move. 

 

 

It was said that the Colts were one of the teams Brady would be interested in. Who knows if true....

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, StatesmanN said:

That happens every game for every team.  It is the plays that rise above the average that separate the winners from the losers.

 

Allen made those yesterday with this legs and arm strength.

 

Rivers can't do that.  He can still play standard ABC football just fine.  But he can't play elite football.

The Colts did play above average, 474 yards and no turnovers is historically a win. They played four quarters instead of two. It was a Buffalo day. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

During Indy's 27-24 loss to the Bills in the wild-card round, the Colts became the first team in NFL playoff history to lose after turning the ball over zero times AND totaling 450 or more yards of offense.

Yupp.. this hurts. Bad bad playcalling. And Bills has the right bounce Saturday. We've recovered that fumble several times this season.. oh well.. we weren't expected to win. That's all I keep telling myself... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Losing to the Steelers in the 95 season. Colts Jets 2002 41-0? 

 

The Colts were the 7th seed that barely got in and nearly shut down the unstoppable Bills. In fact...it's the opposite. This is probably the easiest playoff exit I have witnessed as a fan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We should have taken the FG. This makes 3 times in like 4 games we've done this and it hasn't worked out once. 

 

Speaking of that, I still would like someone to explain the analytics to me. I understand it involves using previous data to predict a future outcome but its particularly confusing for me because we're essentially using generic analytics to make a specific determination for this team. If its not general how can anyone, other than Frank ever say "this is what the analytics say to do here"?

Is it fair to say the go for it % would have been the exact same if the Bills were in our position on that 4th down using analytics? They have Josh Allen, who adds a completely additional dimension than Rivers - how is that calculated? Does their analytics say the exact same thing as ours? If they're the same please tell me how they're excluding players and skill sets in the math (like Josh Allen vs Philip Rivers running)? If they're different please dont ever say "the analytics were correct on that call" because you have no idea the data set the Colts are using.

 

For example, the "analytics" said go for it on that 4th down even though we had 4 downs to convert the yardage and failed on the previous 3 (thus the 4th down in the first place). At what point does the analytics say 'you've failed 100% of the time in this EXACT situation today?'

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Kccolts said:

I would agree with this, it is better to bewell beaten than look back at the game and think what might have been. 

While on one hand we showed we can compete withthe Bills, it is very frustrating that we did not get over the line. 

You mean compete with Allen the Bills as a team where average, we had better talent 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

We should have taken the FG. This makes 3 times in like 4 games we've done this and it hasn't worked out once. 

 

Speaking of that, I still would like someone to explain the analytics to me. I understand it involves using previous data to predict a future outcome but its particularly confusing for me because we're essentially using generic analytics to make a specific determination for this team. If its not general how can anyone, other than Frank ever say "this is what the analytics say to do here"?

Is it fair to say the go for it % would have been the exact same if the Bills were in our position on that 4th down using analytics? They have Josh Allen, who adds a completely additional dimension than Rivers - how is that calculated? Does their analytics say the exact same thing as ours? If they're the same please tell me how they're excluding players and skill sets in the math (like Josh Allen vs Philip Rivers running)? If they're different please dont ever say "the analytics were correct on that call" because you have no idea the data set the Colts are using.

 

For example, the "analytics" said go for it on that 4th down even though we had 4 downs to convert the yardage and failed on the previous 3 (thus the 4th down in the first place). At what point does the analytics say 'you've failed 100% of the time in this EXACT situation today?'

 

 

Well, and I am no expert, but yes it’s saying no matter what team, in that situation the better strategy is to go for it. Now I believe, and I could be very wrong, you can add as many filters as you want to make it as specific as you want (assuming you could find enough relevant data to make an informed conclusion). Baseball does it all

of the time. This pitcher vs this hitter,

shifting IF/OF alignment, etc.

 

The rest of what your saying is not analytics, that’s game flow/feel

for the game and is what non-analytical

people use to defend their position vs the analytical position.

 

No one cares that Ballard likes corners over 6’ and/or with arms a certain length(hi Kenneth). Or that QB’s need to be a certain height (hi Drew and Russ). But the numbers say, by and large, that players need certain physical and athletic traits to play certain positions and this is for the most part accepted. It doesn’t mean a player CANT do it, just means the odds aren’t in their favor. 
 

The numbers show that going for it on 4th and 4 were worth the risk. Full Stop.

 

I’m pretty sure Frank said the first year he was here, that he would go for 2 if there is a penalty on the PAT just about every time, because the analytics say to do so.

 

Like it or not...he will use and listen

to the numbers. I had the same argument with @SteelCityColta while back (and he could definitely give a better detailed explanation). I believe it was VS the Jaguars when they shut us out or almost shut us out. Frank went for a 4th down in the red zone when I thought he should have kicked a FG. I understood  that the #’s say go...but that game Colts were struggling to move the ball. I thought kicking the FG and getting those first points on the board would have been the better strategy...feel for the game. 
 

Since then though, I have embraced the more aggressive play calling, and I have to say that I do like it. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mitch Connors said:

We should have taken the FG. This makes 3 times in like 4 games we've done this and it hasn't worked out once. 

 

Speaking of that, I still would like someone to explain the analytics to me. I understand it involves using previous data to predict a future outcome but its particularly confusing for me because we're essentially using generic analytics to make a specific determination for this team. If its not general how can anyone, other than Frank ever say "this is what the analytics say to do here"?

Is it fair to say the go for it % would have been the exact same if the Bills were in our position on that 4th down using analytics? They have Josh Allen, who adds a completely additional dimension than Rivers - how is that calculated? Does their analytics say the exact same thing as ours? If they're the same please tell me how they're excluding players and skill sets in the math (like Josh Allen vs Philip Rivers running)? If they're different please dont ever say "the analytics were correct on that call" because you have no idea the data set the Colts are using.

 

For example, the "analytics" said go for it on that 4th down even though we had 4 downs to convert the yardage and failed on the previous 3 (thus the 4th down in the first place). At what point does the analytics say 'you've failed 100% of the time in this EXACT situation today?'

 

 

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-1.html?m=1

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, King Colt said:

The Colts did play above average, 474 yards and no turnovers is historically a win. They played four quarters instead of two. It was a Buffalo day. 

Agree. Nearly all bounces went against us. Add in the missed opportunities and you get a L. Needed a near perfect game and it didn't happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Btown_Colt said:

Well, and I am no expert, but yes it’s saying no matter what team, in that situation the better strategy is to go for it. Now I believe, and I could be very wrong, you can add as many filters as you want to make it as specific as you want (assuming you could find enough relevant data to make an informed conclusion). Baseball does it all

of the time. This pitcher vs this hitter,

shifting IF/OF alignment, etc.

 

The rest of what your saying is not analytics, that’s game flow/feel

for the game and is what non-analytical

people use to defend their position vs the analytical position.

 

No one cares that Ballard likes corners over 6’ and/or with arms a certain length(hi Kenneth). Or that QB’s need to be a certain height (hi Drew and Russ). But the numbers say, by and large, that players need certain physical and athletic traits to play certain positions and this is for the most part accepted. It doesn’t mean a player CANT do it, just means the odds aren’t in their favor. 
 

The numbers show that going for it on 4th and 4 were worth the risk. Full Stop.

 

I’m pretty sure Frank said the first year he was here, that he would go for 2 if there is a penalty on the PAT just about every time, because the analytics say to do so.

 

Like it or not...he will use and listen

to the numbers. I had the same argument with @SteelCityColta while back (and he could definitely give a better detailed explanation). I believe it was VS the Jaguars when they shut us out or almost shut us out. Frank went for a 4th down in the red zone when I thought he should have kicked a FG. I understood  that the #’s say go...but that game Colts were struggling to move the ball. I thought kicking the FG and getting those first points on the board would have been the better strategy...feel for the game. 
 

Since then though, I have embraced the more aggressive play calling, and I have to say that I do like it. 

 

 

 

 

On the whole I agree with the approach, if you're going to embrace the analytical approach you have to see it through as that's the whole basis of the idea. That being said, my gut feel at the time was to kick the FG, as much as I know what the numbers say. The knock out nature of the playoffs does make it something of a different beast compared to 16 game sample. 

 

A poor analogy for trying to explain the above is poker. Playing 'cash' poker (vs tournament) in that if you were to ignore any tells from other plays, or be online, you could play the odds every hand and over the long term you'd come out ahead. However, let's say instead you are playing tournament. You might find yourself in a situation where although you may have excellent odds of winning a hand, you may choose to fold because of overarching situations, such as being on the 'bubble'. Translating this to football there may be play to play situations that alter your decision making. Or factors potentially not included in the original analysis such as weather.

 

To extend this tenuous post even further, we've so far ignored the human factor. In live poker you can read your opponents, and if you can get enough of bead on their tells/tendencies, you may call them in situations where the raw odds don't support it because you think they're bluffing. 

 

Tying this all together. You can work out a fairly good raw rate for success on 4th down situations just from the play history. Go on Pro Football Reference, and it takes two seconds to pull off a large sample. But what about 4th and 2 vs 4th and 5, well that's where you start to build a model, by adding variables. 

 

The question is not so much what are my odds on 4th down, but what are my odds on 4th and 5 at the 10 yard line, with a 5 MPH headwind, against the Bill's D, when their tendency so far has been to sell out to stop the run. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...