Possibly but you won't find me rooting for another team. The Broncos are my team, no matter what even if that what means not watching for a long time.
We get our Pro Bowl center Nick Hardwick back next week. Plus our O-line owned the eagles high ranked rushing defense yesterday. Trent Cole was also shutdown. I see improvement.
One small but important factor that I think everyone is overlooking: when you play the Colts, it invariably comes down to red zone defense. Teams like the Colts move the ball between the 20s like it's nothing, especially against teams playing a deep cover 2. It's the same gripe so many have with the overtime system - if a good offense wins the coin flip, it's too easy to move the ball in the middle of the field when all you need is a field goal. So, imo, if the Pats defense was going to get a stop - it was likely to happen in the red zone, regardless. No, he did not tell his defense he had no confidence in them. He said he had more confidence in Tom Brady picking up two yards (which he actually did, by the way) OR the possibility of his defense holding them out from the 30, than he did his defense holding them out from 70 yards away. Also, historically low percentage? Mind actually sharing some of those percentages? Here's the actual data. http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html Summary: based on historical averages, it's clearly the better option to go for it. Add in the fact that you have Tom Brady (likely giving you a better than average chance at picking up the first) and they have Peyton Manning (likely giving them a better than average team's chance at picking up the TD), and it's even more overwhelming.
Westbrook should be placed on IR. If I were the Eagles, there is now way I take a chance on him getting a third concussion. I hear LJ is available.
LOL! I just thought about that match up. There will be a thread soon in the other Houston sports forum I'm sure.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/...s-fourth-down-bid/?src=twt&twt=nytimes5thdown Frank Frigo and Chuck Bower, champion backgammon players and developers of the ZEUS computer program, have huddled with N.F.L. executives over the years, including with Bill Belichick. They can simulate hundreds of thousands of N.F.L. outcomes in seconds, and their program is customizable to account for the strengths and weaknesses of the offensive and defensive units of each team. Frigo criticized a key Belichick decision last November in a loss at Indianapolis. This morning, a little over a year later, Frigo said Belichick was being unjustly castigated. He sent this analysis via e-mail: A very interesting and controversial decision with the Patriots last night. I read the Advanced NFL Stats analysis and concur with Brian Burke’s general framing of the problem and his support of Belichick. Here are three ways ZEUS breaks down the problem. In each scenario, an extended simulation is performed beginning with the exact circumstance on 4th-and-2 and finishing at the conclusion of the game. Scenario 1: The custom case for the specific offensive and defensive features of the Colts and the Patriots. Going for it: 77.3% (Probability of Winning for the Patriots) Punting: 75.7% Scenario 2: The case for two N.F.L. average and equal teams in every offensive and defensive category: Going for it: 78.6% (Probability of Winning for the Patriots) Punting: 76.4% Scenario 3: The break-even point on the decision occurs when the team with the ball is about 5 percent weaker than N.F.L. average on offense and 5 percent better than N.F.L. average on defense, while the opposing team is 5 percent better than N.F.L. average on defense and 5 percent worse than average on offense. The results of Scenarios #1 and #2 clearly point in favor of Belichick’s decision, although not by nearly as wide a margin as we might have expected. Additionally, the analysis in Scenario #3 really cements the case for “going for it.” Applying this benchmark and comparing it with the far different characteristics of the Patriots and the Colts makes the call all the more clear. Thumbs up to Belichick on a courageous and correct call last night.
Seriosly? I don't think I need to tell you how teams in the league approach 4th down or the risks invovled with gambling on going for it. But please, tell me how many times in the history of the NFL a team has gone for it on fourth down below their own 30 yard line and how it's worked out for them. btw, he didn't make it - and I know how you love to talk about the refs - and most people understand that. The call isn't the issue here. He also didn't make it when it was 3rd and 2, which makes this theory that Brady getting the first down should have been so automatic even more laughable. And of course it tells them he had no confidence in the defense. i mean, seriously, this is the defense of the call (after creating some arbitrary criteria where everything between the 20s 'doesn't matter' in your first paragraph): I'm sorry, but I shouldn't have to detail how little sense that makes. The call was a mistake, it was a bad decision, and put his team in a position it shouldn't have had to be in. The outcome of the game is all the proof of that you should need.
Well thats about the corniest thing I've ever heard. Maybe Nefarious Heyward-Bey Jr will probably go #1 to the Raiders 23 years from now. The second coming. FML.
Nothing like nerds coming up with hypothetical evidence to back up a stupid decision. If the scenarios had been switched around, The Cat would be ass-blasting Jim Caldwell.
I feel bad for the kid, I really do. He's going to be remembered for a long time as one of the biggest busts ever and it really isn't quite fair. Rashaun Woods and R.J. Soward status. Everyone knew he wasn't a first round talent, except Al Davis. I think even he knew he didn't belong in the first round. Now he could shake his drops maybe, because he does seem to run some decent routes and he has world-class speed... but right now he's got quite possibly the worst QB in NFL History trying to get him the football so even if he does start to figure things out, he's only getting maybe 2-3 chances a game to prove it. Sad situation because by all accounts DHB is a class act, he just kind of blows goats.
That's the problem. Read the link. Read the NY Times link posted by SCF. Yes, I get that teams typically don't approach fourth downs that way. That doesn't make it right. Off the top of my head, baseball managers used to simply bat the fastest man in their lineup first, without considering on-base percentage or other factors we now consider to be common sense. Sports evolve. Yes, I get that most NFL teams would never consider going for it. That doesn't mean anything. He clear as day made it, sorry. And who said it was automatic? I don't recall ever saying that. As the link said, I'd guess it has about a 60% shot of succeeding. You're putting words in my mouth. Statistically, you have a 60% shot of picking up the first there, and probably greater with Tom Brady at QB. Even if you give the Colts a 100 percent shot at scoring the TD starting on the 29 (ludicrous, historical evidence shows it to be 53%), I still think the odds of Brady picking up two yards are greater than the odds of the Patriots defense stopping the Colts from going 65 yards from the TD. Consider especially that the Colts had already gone the length of the field for touchdowns in 1:49 and 2:05, without using any timeouts, in the quarter. No, the first paragraph was just my personal opinion. It wasn't my criteria. I specifically said even not considering that. Yes, you do. All available evidence points to the Patriots' odds of winning being statistically higher based on the course of action they took. The burden of proof is on you to detail otherwise, if you disagree. Also, the outcome of the game is the proof I need? Are you kidding me? OK, here's a hypothetical for you. Scenario A: On that last play, Manning drills a Patriots cornerback in the hands - completely misses the read - but the ball bounces off the Patriots' hands and ends up in the lap of Wayne for a touchdown. Colts win. Scenario B: On that last play, Manning makes the read correctly - drills Wayne in the hands - but the ball bounces out of Wayne's hands, directly to a defensive back for an interception. Colts lose. If the "outcome" determines whether a decision was right or wrong, Manning's read/decision was clearly better in Scenario A. In reality, of course, it's Scenario B - but unfortunately, luck intervened. Go back and read the Battier "No Stats All-Star" piece. Determining whether a decision was correct solely by the result is silly.
i can't imagine not punting that ball. seriously. with peyton on the other end....and with so little time on the clock...i just can't imagine risking handing him the ball inside my own 30. honestly, you could throw up numbers all day that talk about how smart it is...or how it's the right call....i still think it's stupid given the context. given who was playing.
Stop making sense in here, nobody wants to hear logic. Now If you hate Peyton Manning and nut-hug the Patriots because you're a bandwagon-jumping fan looking to get in on some glory, then in your mind Belicheck did nothing wrong and the Refs obviously rigged the outcome so the Colts would win.
With all due respect, and I like you, but you don't know me at all if you truly think that. This is a case I've been on for my entire football-watching life. People have a way of looking only at the risk in these situations, and not at the reward. Yes, there's a significant risk and a much higher likelihood of the Colts scoring, given the ball on the NE 29. But the potential reward is worth it, given the good chance of success you have. It's not hypothetical evidence. It's weighing every comparable situation in the history of the league. The single most inexplicable coaching decision I've ever seen in my life, and the one that burns me up the most (you might not even remember this) came from Mike Sherman in the infamous Eagles' 4th-and-26 game. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=240111021 It should have never come to 4th and 26. With 2:00 left, the Packers (with an absolutely dominant running game) needed a foot on fourth down to end the game (Philly had only one timeout. The Eagles run D was garbage that year. Sherman punted, the idiots Buck/Aikman of course backed the decision, and the Eagles marched down, kicked the field goal to send it to OT, then won after Favre's typical braindead INT/punt to Brian Dawkins in OT. Everybody remembers it for the 4th and 26, and the Favre pick. I remember it for the idiocy of Mike Sherman believing the odds of his defense denying field goal range to the Eagles were superior to his dominant running game picking up a foot. Unfortunately, what Sherman did fit within the traditional NFL culture, so it didn't go down as a classic NFL blunder. Nonetheless, it was a terrible, gutless decision that ended up costing his team their season. That's the other side to what happened last night. If Jim Caldwell or any other coaches does what Belichick did, I'll applaud him for it. The only way I would punt in that situation is if one team (mine or the other) had a clearly below-average quarterback.
