Everybody else is watching the Super Bowl.....

Partisanship aside (because, after all, I really didn't want to see Belicheck (sic?) win another title after all his shenanigans, and I really didn't want to see Seattle do two in a row) it was very entertaining to see a Super Bowl that came down to a play from the 1 yard line with a few seconds left to decide the title.

"Wrong, the ball is in play for 60 minutes, not 11."
*****
Perhaps "ball in play" is not correct terminology. The 11 minutes was alleged to be the sum of the times when the ball is snapped and then blown dead.

Steve

The real question is who would Merlin root for???

jgnfld wrote:The real question is who would Merlin root for???

The Tellesburg Dragons, of course.

PeterZ wrote:Look at the stats.

Lynch had 5 rushes inside NE's 10 yard line. They were for 3,3,0,1 and 4 yards. Tell me that the Pats did not expect each one of those runs, yet Lynch failed to gain yards in only 1 of those rushes. Overall, Lynch rushed 24 times gained 102 yards, did not lose yardage on any of his carries and failed to gain at least 1 yard only 2 times. He gained 3 or more yards on 19 of his 24 carries. He did not fumble once.

Based on his performance inside the 10, Lynch had 20% of failing in his first carry, 4% cumulative chance of failing on his second and less than 1% cumulative chance of failing in that final carry. Based on his totals for the day, Lynch had a 10% chance of failing in his first carry, 1% cumulative on his second carry and less than 1/10 of a percent chance of failing on all three carries.

Wilson attempted 21 passes missed on 9 of them and had 2 of those misses intercepted. That's a 43% failure rate and on top of that if he fails there is a 22% chance of a turn over.

Purely based on actual performance, Wilson was the riskier play. Lynch touched the ball last prior to the 2 minute warning a 31 yard pass and a full minute of playing time before his 4 yard rumble to the 1. On that play everyone knew he was getting it. The NE LBs collapsed on the Seahawk left side and hit Lynch between the 2-3 yard line. He picked up that extra yard and a half anyway after contact.

Are you seriously telling anyone that saw that last play before the interception or the game or analyzed the stats that Lunch was NOT the best option on 2nd down by a country mile? Dude, the Seahawks did not push around the Pats' D-Line, Lynch got those yards on beastmode after contact all day long.

If anyone is delusional, its you. Either that or your are such a big Pats fan that your brains are beginning to lose their logical functions.

Hi Peterz,
Where did you get those stats!!?? They're pretty impressive. From your earlier “Cheatersbowl” comment I was thinking you're not really into our rugby- takeoff. Lynch's agent would probably use something like that in his contract negotiations. You might not like the stats in the 1st link I'm including.

Unfortunately, if you're discussing the quality of the play call , they're irrelevant. A coach doesn't have that data. What he has is a very thorough study of what the opponent does in different situations and what he does from different player-groupings and what he sees on the field.
Maybe an even bigger thing they look at now is, matchups, e.g. the tall Seattle receiver against a shorter Patriot corner. You'll recall the Patriots moved their tall corner, Browner, over to cover tall guy (I've always been terrible on names) and tall guy disappeared. Or, pass plays designed to get linebackers on backs or wide receivers e.g. Gronkowski's touchdown.

The increase use of “sub-packages”, nickel, dime, to counter different player-groupings almost seems to be the new normal. The Patriots used sub-packages more than they used their base defense this year. Belicheck put in 6 d-linemen, 2 linebackers and three cornerbacks in response to Carroll's putting in 3 receivers. The cornerbacks were on their own. No safeties. No linebackers chipping receivers on their way out, nothing. Belicheck's saying “you're probably gonna run it so here's my best shot. I'll take a chance with my corners on your receivers.”

So Carrol says, “OK Bill, I won't run into your strength, I'll go to my strength here and throw”. There two pictures in the 1st link that show what a well-conceived and well-executed play they chose. Lockette had a clear path to the endzone.

A fun question here is how many times in the last two years when Seattle was in a similar situation did they try to run it in, and what were the results? The answer's in the stat story, so click that link now.

The 2nd link's for Belicheck-haters. The writer presents an argument that the wiley old Hoody outfoxed Carroll in time management and forced him to make a run-pass decision.

Cheatersbowl – hmmm. Can I assume you're outraged at how Seattle, and Kansas City, manipulate the field to gain an advantage in their home games? It's shameful and absolutely threatens the integrity of the game and violates the spirit of fair competition. I hope you didn't get too upset when a coach (Think it was Parcells, I'm not positive) had his locker room fumigated because of rats but stopped the fumigators from treating the visiting team's locker room and then warned them about the rats. Clearly this distracted the visitors in their preparations and actually exposed them to a health risk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fanc ... a-bad-one/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spor ... e-carroll/

I'm havin' fun here but we are definitely into tertiarySDS.

EdThomas wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Look at the stats.

Lynch had 5 rushes inside NE's 10 yard line. They were for 3,3,0,1 and 4 yards. Tell me that the Pats did not expect each one of those runs, yet Lynch failed to gain yards in only 1 of those rushes. Overall, Lynch rushed 24 times gained 102 yards, did not lose yardage on any of his carries and failed to gain at least 1 yard only 2 times. He gained 3 or more yards on 19 of his 24 carries. He did not fumble once.

Based on his performance inside the 10, Lynch had 20% of failing in his first carry, 4% cumulative chance of failing on his second and less than 1% cumulative chance of failing in that final carry. Based on his totals for the day, Lynch had a 10% chance of failing in his first carry, 1% cumulative on his second carry and less than 1/10 of a percent chance of failing on all three carries.

Wilson attempted 21 passes missed on 9 of them and had 2 of those misses intercepted. That's a 43% failure rate and on top of that if he fails there is a 22% chance of a turn over.

Purely based on actual performance, Wilson was the riskier play. Lynch touched the ball last prior to the 2 minute warning a 31 yard pass and a full minute of playing time before his 4 yard rumble to the 1. On that play everyone knew he was getting it. The NE LBs collapsed on the Seahawk left side and hit Lynch between the 2-3 yard line. He picked up that extra yard and a half anyway after contact.

Are you seriously telling anyone that saw that last play before the interception or the game or analyzed the stats that Lunch was NOT the best option on 2nd down by a country mile? Dude, the Seahawks did not push around the Pats' D-Line, Lynch got those yards on beastmode after contact all day long.

If anyone is delusional, its you. Either that or your are such a big Pats fan that your brains are beginning to lose their logical functions.

Hi Peterz,
Where did you get those stats!!?? They're pretty impressive. From your earlier “Cheatersbowl” comment I was thinking you're not really into our rugby- takeoff. Lynch's agent would probably use something like that in his contract negotiations. You might not like the stats in the 1st link I'm including.

Unfortunately, if you're discussing the quality of the play call , they're irrelevant. A coach doesn't have that data. What he has is a very thorough study of what the opponent does in different situations and what he does from different player-groupings and what he sees on the field.
Maybe an even bigger thing they look at now is, matchups, e.g. the tall Seattle receiver against a shorter Patriot corner. You'll recall the Patriots moved their tall corner, Browner, over to cover tall guy (I've always been terrible on names) and tall guy disappeared. Or, pass plays designed to get linebackers on backs or wide receivers e.g. Gronkowski's touchdown.

The increase use of “sub-packages”, nickel, dime, to counter different player-groupings almost seems to be the new normal. The Patriots used sub-packages more than they used their base defense this year. Belicheck put in 6 d-linemen, 2 linebackers and three cornerbacks in response to Carroll's putting in 3 receivers. The cornerbacks were on their own. No safeties. No linebackers chipping receivers on their way out, nothing. Belicheck's saying “you're probably gonna run it so here's my best shot. I'll take a chance with my corners on your receivers.”

So Carrol says, “OK Bill, I won't run into your strength, I'll go to my strength here and throw”. There two pictures in the 1st link that show what a well-conceived and well-executed play they chose. Lockette had a clear path to the endzone.

A fun question here is how many times in the last two years when Seattle was in a similar situation did they try to run it in, and what were the results? The answer's in the stat story, so click that link now.

The 2nd link's for Belicheck-haters. The writer presents an argument that the wiley old Hoody outfoxed Carroll in time management and forced him to make a run-pass decision.

Cheatersbowl – hmmm. Can I assume you're outraged at how Seattle, and Kansas City, manipulate the field to gain an advantage in their home games? It's shameful and absolutely threatens the integrity of the game and violates the spirit of fair competition. I hope you didn't get too upset when a coach (Think it was Parcells, I'm not positive) had his locker room fumigated because of rats but stopped the fumigators from treating the visiting team's locker room and then warned them about the rats. Clearly this distracted the visitors in their preparations and actually exposed them to a health risk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fanc ... a-bad-one/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spor ... e-carroll/

I'm havin' fun here but we are definitely into tertiarySDS.

Well you should be good for another 10 days or so now.

NFL.com look at the play by play in the analysis tab. I didn't watch the game but wanted to anslyze the play. Got into watching videos of Lynch's runs. I had dinner with my wife during the game.

Rationalize all you want. Bottom line is they passed into an area that the defense would have begun collapsing into to prevent the run. No body blocked Butler and his was the only free receiverr. Ever other receiver was was locked up with a defender. As soon as his man cut inside to run that slant route Butler knew where the ball was going. Butler was moving forward before the ball was snapped. All that remained was following his receiver accross the middle or outside.

I agree the play could have worked. I don't agree that passing the ball was a surprise. If teams pass the ball 50% of the time goal to goal and the Hawks just ran it, another run would have been a bigger surprise. Even if everyone would have known he getting the ball, the man was getting positive yards after contact on every carry. Not giving him another shot when they had 1 time out left was suboptimal to the point of recklessness.

EdThomas wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Look at the stats.

Lynch had 5 rushes inside NE's 10 yard line. They were for 3,3,0,1 and 4 yards. Tell me that the Pats did not expect each one of those runs, yet Lynch failed to gain yards in only 1 of those rushes. Overall, Lynch rushed 24 times gained 102 yards, did not lose yardage on any of his carries and failed to gain at least 1 yard only 2 times. He gained 3 or more yards on 19 of his 24 carries. He did not fumble once.

Based on his performance inside the 10, Lynch had 20% of failing in his first carry, 4% cumulative chance of failing on his second and less than 1% cumulative chance of failing in that final carry. Based on his totals for the day, Lynch had a 10% chance of failing in his first carry, 1% cumulative on his second carry and less than 1/10 of a percent chance of failing on all three carries.

Wilson attempted 21 passes missed on 9 of them and had 2 of those misses intercepted. That's a 43% failure rate and on top of that if he fails there is a 22% chance of a turn over.

Purely based on actual performance, Wilson was the riskier play. Lynch touched the ball last prior to the 2 minute warning a 31 yard pass and a full minute of playing time before his 4 yard rumble to the 1. On that play everyone knew he was getting it. The NE LBs collapsed on the Seahawk left side and hit Lynch between the 2-3 yard line. He picked up that extra yard and a half anyway after contact.

Are you seriously telling anyone that saw that last play before the interception or the game or analyzed the stats that Lunch was NOT the best option on 2nd down by a country mile? Dude, the Seahawks did not push around the Pats' D-Line, Lynch got those yards on beastmode after contact all day long.

If anyone is delusional, its you. Either that or your are such a big Pats fan that your brains are beginning to lose their logical functions.

Hi Peterz,
Where did you get those stats!!?? They're pretty impressive. From your earlier “Cheatersbowl” comment I was thinking you're not really into our rugby- takeoff. Lynch's agent would probably use something like that in his contract negotiations. You might not like the stats in the 1st link I'm including.

Unfortunately, if you're discussing the quality of the play call , they're irrelevant. A coach doesn't have that data. What he has is a very thorough study of what the opponent does in different situations and what he does from different player-groupings and what he sees on the field.
Maybe an even bigger thing they look at now is, matchups, e.g. the tall Seattle receiver against a shorter Patriot corner. You'll recall the Patriots moved their tall corner, Browner, over to cover tall guy (I've always been terrible on names) and tall guy disappeared. Or, pass plays designed to get linebackers on backs or wide receivers e.g. Gronkowski's touchdown.

The increase use of “sub-packages”, nickel, dime, to counter different player-groupings almost seems to be the new normal. The Patriots used sub-packages more than they used their base defense this year. Belicheck put in 6 d-linemen, 2 linebackers and three cornerbacks in response to Carroll's putting in 3 receivers. The cornerbacks were on their own. No safeties. No linebackers chipping receivers on their way out, nothing. Belicheck's saying “you're probably gonna run it so here's my best shot. I'll take a chance with my corners on your receivers.”

So Carrol says, “OK Bill, I won't run into your strength, I'll go to my strength here and throw”. There two pictures in the 1st link that show what a well-conceived and well-executed play they chose. Lockette had a clear path to the endzone.

A fun question here is how many times in the last two years when Seattle was in a similar situation did they try to run it in, and what were the results? The answer's in the stat story, so click that link now.

The 2nd link's for Belicheck-haters. The writer presents an argument that the wiley old Hoody outfoxed Carroll in time management and forced him to make a run-pass decision.

Cheatersbowl – hmmm. Can I assume you're outraged at how Seattle, and Kansas City, manipulate the field to gain an advantage in their home games? It's shameful and absolutely threatens the integrity of the game and violates the spirit of fair competition. I hope you didn't get too upset when a coach (Think it was Parcells, I'm not positive) had his locker room fumigated because of rats but stopped the fumigators from treating the visiting team's locker room and then warned them about the rats. Clearly this distracted the visitors in their preparations and actually exposed them to a health risk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fanc ... a-bad-one/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spor ... e-carroll/

I'm havin' fun here but we are definitely into tertiarySDS.

PeterZ wrote:Look at the stats.

"There are lies, Damned lies and Statistics"

No further comment required.

More accurately: "There are lies, damned lies, and people who lie intentionally misusing statistics in a way that confuses naive listeners."

Saw a great antivaxxer "analysis" this week. Apparently 108 children have died in the weeks following vaccinations over the past decade or so. Of course no mention is made of how many children died in random weeks not following a vaccination at the same general time.

The climate denialists are every bit as "honest" as well and antievolutionists too.

chrisd wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Look at the stats.

"There are lies, Damned lies and Statistics"

No further comment required.

PeterZ wrote:Look at the stats.

chrisd wrote:

"There are lies, Damned lies and Statistics"

No further comment required.

jgnfld wrote:More accurately: "There are lies, damned lies, and people who lie intentionally misusing statistics in a way that confuses naive listeners."

Saw a great antivaxxer "analysis" this week. Apparently 108 children have died in the weeks following vaccinations over the past decade or so. Of course no mention is made of how many children died in random weeks not following a vaccination at the same general time.

The climate denialists are every bit as "honest" as well and antievolutionists too.

Just out of curiousity, how many weeks after the vaccination did they look. If you look long enough, virtually all of the children vaccinated will die, some of them taking 80-90 years to do so. And did they bother to count the number of children who were not vaccinated you died of the disease, within the lifespan of protection of the vaccination (something in excess of
10 years should be the range) - Of course not - that would blow their hypothesis.