Down by 1, and Garrett goes for the FG?

[theogt]

And you are justifying on made up numbers to do your calculation. You are assigning the number? :laugh2: Hell you can get it to turn out the way you see it by using arbitrary numbers that you are pulling from thin air.

FYI, when making a decision based on multiple possible outcomes, you have to assign probabilities to outcomes. This isn't rocket science, so please try to follow along.

 

[Doomsday101]

FYI, when making a decision based on multiple possible outcomes, you have to assign probabilities to outcomes. This isn't rocket science, so please try to follow along.

I'm following along you taking bogus % and assigning it the way you see fit. Fact is Manning had already thrown 3 ints 2 for TD so there is no way of knowing what the colts were going to do. With a 7 point lead the Dallas defense played a prevent (I think was a mistake) with a tie game Dallas gets out of the prevent and plays the base defense and stops the colts twice

 

[theogt]

Not to mention, he is now calculating percentages, whereas up to now he has been saying that had the Cowboys kicked the FG the Colts would have been GUARANTEED (100% chance) to win.

Go back and read what I said -- "virtually a guaranteed loss." That does not mean 100% chance. I know you've been running through this thread as if you've nailed me on some technicality, but you're too dense to notice such a nuance.

 

[theogt]

I'm following along you taking bogus % and assigning it the way you see fit. Fact is Manning had already thrown 3 ints 2 for TD so there is no way of knowing what the colts were going to do. With a 7 point lead the Dallas defense played a prevent (I think was a mistake) with a tie game Dallas gets out of the prevent and plays the base defense and stops the colts twice

Go ahead, assign your percentages. If you can't assign percentages, then it means you don't know which is the better decision. You're simply taking a guess.

 

[Doomsday101]

Go ahead, assign your percentages. If you can't assign percentages, then it means you don't know which is the better decision. You're simply taking a guess.

Please put the class room geek crap to rest, I have seen enough HC in the same situation do exactly what Garrett did. Fact is no one knows what will happen afterwards and no coach in his right mind is going to risk not getting the lead when it is right there for the taking. What were the odds of Dallas scoring the TD on 4th down? we sure as hell did not make it on our 4th try, it took 6 tries before we could punch it in and tell me what are the odds of losing if we hand the ball back to the colts and all they need is a couple of 1st downs to end the game. You don't throw away oppertunities when the come

 

[theogt]

Please put the class room geek crap to rest

And we're back to ignoring what you don't understand.

I guess this conversation's over now.

 

[Stautner]

If you notice, I actually didn't give the Colts a 100% chance of scoring a FG in my calculations.

Why? Because when I said "virtually guarantee" I didn't actually mean it's an inevitability. You see, I use the English language. And in the English language, words are not always taken literally. This may be new to you, I understand.

A touchdown doesn't guarantee a win, obviously, but a FG guarantees a loss.

These are your words.

In addition, we've been talking continually about this notion of the Colts being GUARANTEED to win for 2 days now, and you have repeatedly supported your use of the word "guarantee" without once indicating you didn't mean it literally.

And it hasn't just been me. Doomsday, Peoplaw and others have discussed your claim that the Colts would be "guaranteed" to win, and until now you have never objected to any of us taking you literally.

Face it, you trapped yourself by using the word "guaranteed" and supporting it for 2 days, then coming up with your personal formula for calculating odds without realizing it disputed your claim of a guarantee.

 

[peplaw06]

Whether it's one decision or hundreds, it doesn't matter in the slightest. You attempted to justify the decision based on the results, which is not how you properly judge a decision.

No in my original post, I justified the decision based on the fact that IMO it was the right move, and I figure that 90% of coaches in the same scenario would do the same thing. I'm not justifying the decision based on the outcome.

What I am saying is that arguing about whether it was the right decision or not is pretty ridiculous, considering the outcome.

 

[Stautner]

And we're back to ignoring what you don't understand.

I guess this conversation's over now.

The thing is, your formula doesn't cover everything.

We all know that the Cowboys odds of winninig would have been greater with the TD vs. the FG. No one is or has disputed that.

But there are other factors - other variables. For example:

1. What would the Cowboys odds of winning be if we failed to make the TD (just a smidge above ZERO). Ther is a risk/reward factor, and while the reward would have been a greater chance to win, the risk was a certain loss.

2. How are the odds affected when you weigh the risk of placing eveything on one play - on Indy being able to win by executing ONE play, versus forcing Indy to execute a succession of plays just to get in range to make an attempt at a FG, which then is not guaranteed to be successful? What are the odds that an INT (an already proven element in the game), a dropped pass (as would take place by Wayne in OT), a penalty or other offensive misstep could have occurred that would have made it more difficult for the Colts?

3. How are the odds affected by the fact that Dallas had already been stopped by Indy on 6 straight plays from insided the 3 yard line?

4. How are the odds affected knowing Dallas has been a poor prforming redzone team for 2 years?

5. How are the odds affected knowing Manning had already thrown 3 picks in situations with less pressure than he would have at the end of the game?

6. How are the odds affected with Manning feeling the additional pressure of knowing that his running game had been conmpletely stuffed and everything had to be done through the air? How are the odds affected by the Cowboys also knowing this and being able to adjust their defense accordingly?

7. How are the odds affected knwong that the Colts are only a 7-6 team this season and are obviously not the juggernaut they once were, or that you still view them to be?

 

[theogt]

These are your words.

In addition, we've been talking continually about this notion of the Colts being GUARANTEED to win for 2 days now, and you have repeatedly supported your use of the word "guarantee" without once indicating you didn't mean it literally.

And it hasn't just been me. Doomsday, Peoplaw and others have discussed your claim that the Colts would be "guaranteed" to win, and until now you have never objected to any of us taking you literally.

Face it, you trapped yourself by using the word "guaranteed" and supporting it for 2 days, then coming up with your personal formula for calculating odds without realizing it disputed your claim of a guarantee.

Yes, I trapped myself by claiming that there was a 100% certainty that the Colts would win if we didn't kick a FG. Quite obviously I was claiming that it was an inevitability due to the fact that I can see the future. It wasn't possible that, like the wording of my first statement on the topic suggest, I was indicating a high probability rather than an absolute certainty.

Since you're completely blinded to any nuance whatsoever, I'll go ahead and point out that the everything I've said in this post is sarcasm.

 

[theogt]

The thing is, your formula doesn't cover everything.

We all know that the Cowboys odds of winninig would have been greater with the TD vs. the FG. No one is or has disputed that.

But there are other factors - other variables. For example:

1. What would the Cowboys odds of winning be if we failed to make the TD (just a smidge above ZERO). Ther is a risk/reward factor, and while the reward would have been a greater chance to win, the risk was a certain loss.

2. How are the odds affected when you weigh the risk of placing eveything on one play - on Indy being able to win by executing ONE play, versus forcing Indy to execute a succession of plays just to get in range to make an attempt at a FG, which then is not guaranteed to be successful? What are the odds that an INT (an already proven element in the game), a dropped pass (as would take place by Wayne in OT), a penalty or other offensive misstep could have occurred that would have made it more difficult for the Colts?

3. How are the odds affected by the fact that Dallas had already been stopped by Indy on 6 straight plays from insided the 3 yard line?

4. How are the odds affected knowing Dallas has been a poor prforming redzone team for 2 years?

5. How are the odds affected knowing Manning had already thrown 3 picks in situations with less pressure than he would have at the end of the game?

6. How are the odds affected with Manning feeling the additional pressure of knowing that his running game had been conmpletely stuffed and everything had to be done through the air? How are the odds affected by the Cowboys also knowing this and being able to adjust their defense accordingly?

7. How are the odds affected knwong that the Colts are only a 7-6 team this season and are obviously not the juggernaut they once were, or that you still view them to be?

All of these are covered in the formula. You simply adjust the % for any given variable based on how you think these factors play out.

 

[Stautner]

Yes, I trapped myself by claiming that there was a 100% certainty that the Colts would win if we didn't kick a FG. Quite obviously I was claiming that it was inevitability due to the fact that I can see the future. It wasn't possible that, like the wording of my first statement on the topic suggest, I was indicating a high probability.

Since you're completely blinded to any nuance whatsoever, I'll go ahead and point out that the everything I've said in this post is sarcasm.

It was very clear that we took your words as writtien, and you had MANY chances over the last 2 days to indicate that you didn't mean them to be taken that way, yet you never did.

In fact, I even gave you several perfect opportunities to explain you didn't mean the word "guarantee" literally. Several times I said that stopping the Colts would have been tough, but I didn't believe the Colts were "guaranteed" to score, yet each time you continued to support your use of the word "guarantee" rather than use the opportunity to explore common ground.

2 days of discussion, and only now you are saying "NEVER MIND, I DIDN:T REALLY MEAN IT THAT WAY".

 

[Stautner]

All of these are covered in the formula. You simply adjust the % for any given variable based on how you think these factors play out.

They are only covered in the formula if you feel you can place specific values on intangible variables. The fact is, many of these variables cannot be quantified, therefore your formula cannot take them into consideration.

 

[theogt]

you had MANY chances over the last 2 days to indicate that you didn't mean them to be taken that way, yet you never did.

No, I merely laughed at you for not recognizing the difference.

Because, you know, it's monumentally stupid for you think I was literally referring to 100% certainty.

They are only covered in the formula if you feel you can place specific values on intangible variables. The fact is, many of these variables cannot be quantified, therefore your formula cannot take them into consideration.

They cannot be quantified with relative certainty, but you have to make a probability determination. Otherwise, you just flip a coin and go with that. Obviously you've made probability determinations, because you've made up your mind what was the better decision.

Or perhaps you haven't and are just going to attempt to defend whatever decision is made. Actually, that does seem more likely now that I've thought of it.

 

[Stautner]

No, I merely laughed at you for not recognizing the difference.

Because, you know, it's monumentally stupid for you think I was literally referring to 100% certainty.

They cannot be quantified with relative certainty, but you have to make a probability determination. Otherwise, you just flip a coin and go with that. Obviously you've made probability determinations, because you've made up your mind what was the better decision.

Or perhaps you haven't and are just going to attempt to defend whatever decision is made. Actually, that does seem more likely now that I've thought of it.

Do you even realize what you are saying?. You are NOW saying that you have been arguing with me for 2 DAYS even though the intent of your comments was to convey almost exactly the same thing I said.

Which makes your silly little condescending attitude even more laughable.

as I said, conceded SEVERAL times that it would have been difficult to stop the Colts from scoring, so if you were only saying that the Colts would have had a "high probablity' of scoring rather than a certainty, then what would have been your point of contention?

The fact is that your argument depended on the "guarantee" because without it your comments wouldn't have been much different than mine.

But that's not what you said. You said that it wouldn't have just been that the Colts would have had a good chance of moving the ball into scoring range, you said they were guaranteed to do it.

 

[Tobal]

You win by having more points at the end, if It's close to the end of the game you take the lead. You might not ever see the ball again.

I can see where you'd think about going for it, but it would and should be a fleeting thought.

 

[theogt]

Do you even realize what you are saying?. You are NOW saying that you have been arguing with me for 2 DAYS even though the intent of your comments was to convey almost exactly the same thing I said.

Which makes your silly little condescending attitude even more laughable.

as I said, conceded SEVERAL times that it would have been difficult to stop the Colts from scoring, so if you were only saying that the Colts would have had a "high probablity' of scoring then what would have been your point of contention?

The fact is that your argument depended on the "guarantee" because without it your comments wouldn't have been much different than mine.

But that's not what you said. You said that it wouldn't have just been that the Colts would have had a good chance of moving the ball into scoring range, you said they were guaranteed to do it.

If you actually read my comments instead of letting your "internet anger" get the better of you, you might not actually look like a complete buffoon at the moment. But you didn't, so you do. And such is life.

 

[Stautner]

You win by having more points at the end, if It's close to the end of the game you take the lead. You might not ever see the ball again.

I can see where you'd think about going for it, but it would and should be a fleeting thought.

This is exactly right. Sure it would pass through your mind that you would like to have the extra cushion, but you couldn't risk not getting the lead at all.

 

[Stautner]

If you actually read my comments instead of letting your "internet anger" get the better of you, you might not actually look like a complete buffoon at the moment. But you didn't, so you do. And such is life.

Another of your typicdal posts. You call names, feign intellectually superiority, but you say nothing of substance. There is no logic, no content, just a bit of chest puffing to throw a smokescreen. It always cracks me up when people assume all they have to do is pretend they have said something in the past and everyone will believe it to be true.

Again, your words ........

Originally Posted by theogt [URL="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"][URL="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"][URL="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"][URL="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"] [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
A touchdown doesn't guarantee a win, obviously, but a FG guarantees a loss.


You didn't say a TD gives us a "high probabilty" of winning and a FG gives us a "high probablility" of losing, you said one was not a guarantee and the other was a guarantee.

And then you supported that comment for 2 days, and not just against me, but agains several other posters who took your words as you wrote them, Now you backpeddling and using this silly little act of superiority as a weak smokescreen.

 

[theogt]

but you say nothing of substance.

Do you mean I literally never say anything of substance or do you mean that I only usually say nothing of substance?

I want to be clear as to whether you only take others literally or you apply this silly rubric to yourself as well.