beware_d-ware
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 7,485
- Reaction score
- 9,118
Unfortunately, I can't find any of the 4th-down calculators tackling the 4th-and-3. I'm sure it's out there but I don't want to grind through the math. I do know that I'd much rather try to get 3 yards on one play than resign myself to having to stop Dallas from driving into FG range (especially when failure to get the 3 yards just means that Dallas has to drive into FG range, albeit from closer in).Indeed, I forgot to calculate the fg. I think that’s fair and accurate if you just thinking about the situation. They were at the 2 yard line with a chance to win the game and didn’t. Even with your math, there is a 38% chance they lose by going for it, which is not all that unlikely in general.
I think he could have saved himself the aggravation by kicking and I would say it also took guts.
But anyway, my main point here was posting about the original topic, which I think is less clear.
Sure. Not converting is worse than punting: that's why you have a decision to make. If not converting wasn't worse than punting, there's no debate.Bill would have gone for it if Brady were his Qb. He knows what the limitations are. Not convert and it is worse than punting!
Yes! You're always thrilled when the other team punts. Why? Because possession is everything! Having the ball is incredibly valuable. Which is why you shouldn't give it up so easily.Let me ask fans something. When are you NOT thrilled when they punt on fourth and short? I’d say we’re almost always relieved so this is a trash litmus test.
And the reason we’re thrilled is because it puts control in our hands. We prefer that to the alternative pretty much every time.
Like you think Pats fans weren’t thrilled when we kicked on fourth and one twice at the end of the game? And we won the game anyway.
Possession may or may not be everything, but we certainly prefer it. There is an entire theory about locus of control, which makes us feel better but isn’t necessarily logical.Yes! You're always thrilled when the other team punts. Why? Because possession is everything! Having the ball is incredibly valuable. Which is why you shouldn't give it up so easily.
When you have 4th and 3 in overtime, there's obviously no surefire way to win. And I'll pass on the appeals to authority, thanks. All you have to do is look around and see how much decision-making is finally changing after decades of recalcitrance to know that coaches didn't have some deeper knowledge driving these decisions. (Well, except the knowledge of how to keep their jobs, which I'll grant isn't an issue with Belichick).
I know I was thrilled when they chose to punt. I can't imagine why anyone would have felt differently. They're giving up the ball, for free, without a fight, in a sudden death situation? In what universe is that not fantastic?
Possession may or may not be everything, but we certainly prefer it. There is an entire theory about locus of control, which makes us feel better but isn’t necessarily logical.
For instance, many are more nervous in a plane vs a car even though the plane is safer. And that’s because you feel in control in a car and not in a plane.
Your math is wrong. You're forgetting the possibility of kicking the FG after the successful sneak. If they don't score the TD in the 2 or 3 plays they have clock for, they'll kick it then and take it to OT.
I agree the sneak is about 80%. And I agree your 70% TD chance may be a little high. Eh, let's call it 60%.
So:
1. Kick the FG. Call it 100%. Go to OT. 50% chance to win. We agree.
2. Sneak. Fail. Lose. 0% chance.
3. Sneak. Succeed. Now there are three possible outcomes. Let's call them: (a) Score TD, 60%. (b) Screw up, 5% (Turnover, basically. They still were going to have a time out so there's virtually no chance the clock runs out on them). (c) Don't get TD, kick FG, go to overtime, 35%.
3a. TD. Win. 80% * 60% = 48% win chance.
3b. Screw up. Lose. 0% win chance.
3c. FG. 80% * 35% * 50% (OT) = 14% win chance.
So your chance to win by sneaking is around 62%, not the 56% you calculated. And that's with a lower TD chance than you estimated.
Sure. Not converting is worse than punting: that's why you have a decision to make. If not converting wasn't worse than punting, there's no debate.
Convert is really, really good. You keep the ball and have a good chance to win or at least go ahead.
Punt is pretty bad. You give up the ball without a fight but you do push Dallas back 30 yards.
Fail to convert is worse. You give up the ball and don't push them back 30 yards.
The argument is that converting is so much better than giving up the ball that it's worth gambling 30 yards of field position on that chance. And given that Dallas had gone on long drives on each of their last 4 possessions, and the NE defense wasn't going to be less tired in overtime, it seems to me to be an easy call.
Possession is everything in overtime.
I don't think they were expecting just a 34 yard or less punt in that situation. I think in that situation they are planning for 40 yards or more of field position. Sure if they think they can only gain a 30 yard flip in field position, then they may change what they do. They were hoping for more than just a 34 yard punt and pinning Dallas deeper than the 20 yard line.
The Patriots averaged 10.9 yards per pass attempt today (this stat excludes sacks)
The Patriots averaged 4.4 yards per rush attempt
So what did Belichick do in overtime needing just 3 yards with the Pats at their own 46?
He did what other traditional dinosaur coaches do: punted. Surrendered the ball for 34 yards of field, which wasn't likely to matter to the Cowboys offense, which gobbled up 567 yards on the day.
The sport is getting smarter. People like Bill...are not.
NE was 3-9 on 3rd down efficiency for the game. We were 3-13 so I think Bill thought he had a chance (5-17 for 3rd and 4th). According to that 3rd down efficiency his D had a better chance getting off the field on 3rd down than ours. It was a sound decision.Sure. Not converting is worse than punting: that's why you have a decision to make. If not converting wasn't worse than punting, there's no debate.
Convert is really, really good. You keep the ball and have a good chance to win or at least go ahead.
Punt is pretty bad. You give up the ball without a fight but you do push Dallas back 30 yards.
Fail to convert is worse. You give up the ball and don't push them back 30 yards.
The argument is that converting is so much better than giving up the ball that it's worth gambling 30 yards of field position on that chance. And given that Dallas had gone on long drives on each of their last 4 possessions, and the NE defense wasn't going to be less tired in overtime, it seems to me to be an easy call.
Possession is everything in overtime.
Unfortunately I am not getting your point, but mine was correcting the initial post where they seemed to conclude that possession is always better (which is not NECESSARILY true). I was merely stating that being in control feels better.Using how you feel in the emotion is romanticism. The idea that you can feel your way to the right answer is known as emotional intelligence. It is the basis of countless Ph. D. thesis and similar conclusions that show that it is nonsense. People want it to be true but its undeniably inaccurate.
Yeah if you think that punting from their 46 their goal was a touchback then you are delusional. The failure to execute the punt was bigger than the decision to punt.
Unfortunately I am not getting your point, but mine was correcting the initial post where they seemed to conclude that possession is always better (which is not NECESSARILY true). I was merely stating that being in control feels better.
As to emotional intelligence, sure, I know the area.