Super Bowl XLIX - Seahawks v. Patriots

[tifosi77]

That's assuming they have to run plays on all three downs. Score on 2nd down and the rest is moot. I don't think throwing was the worst call in the history of football but Seattle got caught playing the long game when there wasn't really any need to play the long game.

Which is kind of my point. By not taking the timeout, Belichick forced SEA into a playcalling gambit where they basically overthought things. Just hand the ball off, already.

[jf]

Someone with better math skills than me needs to answer that. A 46% chance on each of three plays works out to what total probability for completing a goal line stand? (I don't know if that 46% chance is the right number, just using it for the argument) If that aggregate probability is greater than the probability of Brady gaining at least 40 yds in 20 seconds, then that's what you roll with.

The Pats were terrible on goal line defense this year, I do know that. But I have a hard time believing that one of the greatest sports coaches of my lifetime suddenly became stupid.

Benjamin Morris already ran the math:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-h ... e-carroll/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I tried posting an image of the chart but it cuts it off and if there's any way to resize images on the board I don't know how. Not taking the timeout lowered their chances of winning because Seattle's likely to score there. That it worked out doesn't make it a good decision.

I think he is skewing the numbers a bit to prove his point . I'm sure in his math he is giving the Pats a way higher percentage weight to win in overtime . I would like to see his numbers run for percentages of the Pats just tying the game up . Even with his numbers the way he ran them , not calling timeouts changed the chance of winning by 2 % .

[shmenguin]

yeah, 2%. big whoop. regardless, it still means it was wrong in both a statistical way, and definitely a practical way.

[Rocco]

That's assuming they have to run plays on all three downs. Score on 2nd down and the rest is moot. I don't think throwing was the worst call in the history of football but Seattle got caught playing the long game when there wasn't really any need to play the long game.

Which is kind of my point. By not taking the timeout, Belichick forced SEA into a playcalling gambit where they basically overthought things. Just hand the ball off, already.

Which to me feels like ex post facto reasoning to avoid admitting that Belichick screwed up and got away with it.

[tifosi77]

I'm no fan of Belichick, not trying to heap praise on the guy. Just have a hard time believing that he suddenly got squishy brained with the game on the line.

[MWB]

Hard to say which is more likely:
Kearse makes the catch and he's think "OMG, can't belive this is happening again" and freezes up or that he consciously chose to let time run.

[jf]

yeah, 2%. big whoop. regardless, it still means it was wrong in both a statistical way, and definitely a practical way.

How is that ? It is about even . The Patriots decided they were going to rest the outcome on their defense and they were right .

[Rocco]

Someone with better math skills than me needs to answer that. A 46% chance on each of three plays works out to what total probability for completing a goal line stand? (I don't know if that 46% chance is the right number, just using it for the argument) If that aggregate probability is greater than the probability of Brady gaining at least 40 yds in 20 seconds, then that's what you roll with.

The Pats were terrible on goal line defense this year, I do know that. But I have a hard time believing that one of the greatest sports coaches of my lifetime suddenly became stupid.

Benjamin Morris already ran the math:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-h ... e-carroll/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I tried posting an image of the chart but it cuts it off and if there's any way to resize images on the board I don't know how. Not taking the timeout lowered their chances of winning because Seattle's likely to score there. That it worked out doesn't make it a good decision.

I think he is skewing the numbers a bit to prove his point . I'm sure in his math he is giving the Pats a way higher percentage weight to win in overtime . I would like to see his numbers run for percentages of the Pats just tying the game up . Even with his numbers the way he ran them , not calling timeouts changed the chance of winning by 2 % .

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.co ... -a-timeout" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.co ... lator-demo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you simulate things with the Pats down 3 with 50 seconds left and 1 timeout, they win about 9% of the time. If you simulate things with the Pats down 3 with 20 seconds left and 2 timeouts, they win 4% of the time. The game simulations aren't perfect by any means and there's always room to argue in either direction but it's okay to admit that something worked even though it was the wrong move.

[shmenguin]

yeah, 2%. big whoop. regardless, it still means it was wrong in both a statistical way, and definitely a practical way.

How is that ? It is about even . The Patriots decided they were going to rest the outcome on their defense and they were right .

have you read anything that's been posted in the last 3 hours?

it's okay to admit that something worked even though it was the wrong move.

[shmenguin]

Hard to say which is more likely:
Kearse makes the catch and he's think "OMG, can't belive this is happening again" and freezes up or that he consciously chose to let time run.

honestly, i think he abstractly knew that there was some benefit to putting the pressure on seattle, but wasn't sure exactly what it was. or he lost track things like how many timeouts each team had in that moment, and combine all the factors with the "WTF?" of the kearse catch, and he ultimately said to himself, "F it...we'll win it here".

[ulf]

Yep, Bill Belichick forgot how many timeouts each team had

[columbia]

This seems like the most reasonable explanation.

The Patriots decided they were going to rest the outcome on their defense

Of course, the odds were very much against that working.

[shmenguin]

That's not really reasonable. The advantage to his defense was marginal. Not enough to justify the tactic.

[ulf]

That's not really reasonable. The advantage to his defense was marginal. Not enough to justify the tactic.

To be clear, "letting his defense win it" isn't reasonable but forgetting how many times outs they had is? What are you even arguing?

[jf]

That's not really reasonable. The advantage to his defense was marginal. Not enough to justify the tactic.

I still don't see your reasoning . By 538 numbers : If Seattle runs the ball on every play . they have an 86.1 % chance to win with a 13.9 % chance of losing . That means the Pats have a 13.9 % chance to win . If Seattle scores , the Pats have anywhere from a 3 to 6.4 % chance to win . That means the Pats have a better chance of stopping them than coming from behind to win.

[shmenguin]

That's not really reasonable. The advantage to his defense was marginal. Not enough to justify the tactic.

To be clear, "letting his defense win it" isn't reasonable but forgetting how many times outs they had is? What are you even arguing?

Good one. Focus on a flip, throw away, passing thought. Because there's nothing else to whatever you're trying to say.

[shmenguin]

That's not really reasonable. The advantage to his defense was marginal. Not enough to justify the tactic.

I still don't see your reasoning . By 538 numbers : If Seattle runs the ball on every play . they have an 86.1 % chance to win with a 13.9 % chance of losing . That means the Pats have a 13.9 % chance to win . If Seattle scores , the Pats have anywhere from a 3 to 6.4 % chance to win . That means the Pats have a better chance of stopping them than coming from behind to win.

It's been outlined clearly. Everyone seems to understand except for you and probably ulf - but I think he's just being argumentative.

[Idoit40fans]

That article was awful. It talks about brady being great but ignores the secondary that hes going up against. It also just assumes random odds theoughout. Ok defense vs good offense or good offense vs great defense in less than a minute. They made the right choice.

Stops inside the 5 happen way more than 40+ yard drives in 3 plays do.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

Its amazing how it's coming out now that Seattle was disturbingly injured in the Super Bowl. Chancellor had a torn MCL, Sherman needs Tommy John, Thomas had a torn labrum and Lane's arms turned into a right angle after the interception


If they were all healthy, I can't imagine they give up 4 TDs

[skullman80]

Saw this today... has different people mic'd up on the last drive. Pretty cool to hear everything.

http://at.nfl.com/23oeKNt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dodint]

[mikey287]

I'm assuming Marty Crane's obit will read the same...