Goats vs Ravens

[steelreserve]

SR,
I think you're

Overtime *used* to be that simple, but it's not anymore. A team that defers doesn't have to make a stop, it simply has to answer. It's the receiving team that has to make a stop. There are a lot of valid reasons for not electing to receive. Field conditions, wind direction, field position, offense vs defense matchups, etc.

I get that you don't agree with the call, but it's immaterial. It did not affect the outcome of the game.

One thing that's for sure, this is clearly going nowhere, so you know what, fuck it. Fuck all that bullshit and fuck the whole crappy series of events that led up to it, because seriously, the end of that game sucked a big fat dog dick.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Way too many people that never played the game want to look exclusively at numbers to make decisions, or convince themselves that those same numbers tell the whole story. There is a place for analytics, probability and statistics, and any number of analytical approaches in the game of football. I just think that too many people look only at numbers and don't understand the importance of being in a locker room or being on the sideline, watching the game up close, seeing the battle at the LOS unfold and really getting a feel for how the game is going, and actually looking players in the eye and determining what the mindset of the team is and who is willing to rise up to a challenge. That part of the game is lost to some people and they simply don't know what they don't know.

Yeah, I was thinking during the coin toss that they take the closed end of the stadium and kick off to the Ravens (just as they did). Let the defense get a stop(which they were doing) and maybe get a short field where the O just needs 30 -40 yard gain to kick a FG. I didn't have confidence in the 3rd string QB to gain 60 yards in order to kick a FG. Neither did Tomlin I guess.

[pczach]

How true. The place for the feel of the game and seeing it unfold up close is in playcalling, in decisions like going for it on fourth down, in who to put on the field.

Things like ... knowing the rules of overtime - yeah, that's actually ALL statistics and probability, sorry.

I also love how people will say "rah rah, defense was on FIRE, you gotta go with it and put it in their hands!" and then also completely ignore the fact that the defense has to get a stop either way.

Like ... if you are playing blackjack and you double down on 16, every once in a while you'll win, but that does not mean it was a smart bet. Or in this case it's more like, if you were to just spot the dealer a 21 at the start of the hand, once in a while you'll push, but why in the world would you even bet on that in the first place.

Look, if you want to go down with that ship...go right ahead.

You would normally be correct about taking the ball from a percentage standpoint. I would have been fine if Tomlin decided to go with taking the ball first. I trusted him in that situation.

You keep saying that it's about knowing the rules of overtime. Everyone knows the rules. it's knowing your team and the most current state of that team, and all the variables within the game.

When you are playing blackjack, there is no third string quarterback that you are doubling down on. The value of the cards isn't the same in every situation. In football, you aren't picking from a set of cards in unknown order. You are calculating the specifics of your personnel and how they are performing. You already know the value of the cards you are playing with, and you are putting them on the field. You couldn't pick a worse analogy.

What did your magic formula say was the percentage play before overtime started?

I can answer that. You had no idea. You didn't run any numbers yourself to figure anything out. To say otherwise is complete bullshit.

Here is an article that states that the winner of the coin toss in NFL overtime and receiving the kickoff wins 52.7 percent of the time at some point during overtime. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...le-is-tweaked/

A 52.7 percent winning percentage is hardly a definitive play. There is no huge statistical advantage with that number. Sorry, but it is not.

I accept that there is a very small advantage play involved with the results. Probability and statistics say that there is a better chance to win the game if you win the toss and receive the kickoff. What it doesn't tell any of us is how many overtimes have involved an undrafted rookie, third-string, quarterback playing in his first regular season game ever......and what percentage of teams have won taking the ball first with that quarterback. If you don't think that the probability of victory changes with the quality of the quarterback playing, the strength of the offense playing, the strength of the defense playing, or any of a million other factors, you're only fooling yourself.

52.7 percent with almost always a starting quarterback....so it would certainly be lower with an undrafted rookie, third-string, first NFL action ever quarterback.

Do you agree with that or not?

[steelreserve]

Look, if you want to go down with that ship...go right ahead.

You would normally be correct about taking the ball from a percentage standpoint. I would have been fine if Tomlin decided to go with taking the ball first. I trusted him in that situation.

You keep saying that it's about knowing the rules of overtime. Everyone knows the rules. it's knowing your team and the most current state of that team, and all the variables within the game.

When you are playing blackjack, there is no third string quarterback that you are doubling down on. The value of the cards isn't the same in every situation. In football, you aren't picking from a set of cards in unknown order. You are calculating the specifics of your personnel and how they are performing. You already know the value of the cards you are playing with, and you are putting them on the field. You couldn't pick a worse analogy.

What did your magic formula say was the percentage play before overtime started?

I can answer that. You had no idea. You didn't run any numbers yourself to figure anything out. To say otherwise is complete bullshit.

Here is an article that states that the winner of the coin toss in NFL overtime and receiving the kickoff wins 52.7 percent of the time at some point during overtime. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...le-is-tweaked/

A 52.7 percent winning percentage is hardly a definitive play. There is no huge statistical advantage with that number. Sorry, but it is not.

I accept that there is a very small advantage play involved with the results. Probability and statistics say that there is a better chance to win the game if you win the toss and receive the kickoff. What it doesn't tell any of us is how many overtimes have involved an undrafted rookie, third-string, quarterback playing in his first regular season game ever......and what percentage of teams have won taking the ball first with that quarterback. If you don't think that the probability of victory changes with the quality of the quarterback playing, the strength of the offense playing, the strength of the defense playing, or any of a million other factors, you're only fooling yourself.

52.7 percent with almost always a starting quarterback....so it would certainly be lower with an undrafted rookie, third-string, first NFL action ever quarterback.

Do you agree with that or not?

No, I don't, and here's why: The fact that we had a backup QB hurt our chances of winning, but it did not change the correct play to maximize your chances.

Maybe we had a 42.7 percent chance of winning thanks to having a backup QB if we received, and a 37.3 percent chance of winning if we kicked. It is just a negative modifier on everything. Like, to use blackjack again, if the dealer is showing a 10, your best play is still the same whether your hand is a 12 or a 16, you just have better odds with the 12.

However, you could also argue that Baltimore's bad offensive play made up for a lot of our own disadvantage from having a backup QB, putting us right back around that original 52.7 percent. In fact, that is exactly what people are arguing. So in that case, you would take the 52.7 percent, not the 47.3 percent.

Anyway, that is what the odds say.

No, I guess it is not a back-breaking disadvantage, and most games (19 out of 20 in fact) are going to be decided by other things, which is exactly what happened. But that is still a five and a half percent swing that I don't think there was any good reason to throw away.

[RunNGun]

Are we really arguing about this? It was the wrong call always, playing from ahead in OT is ALWAYS better then trying to match FG for FG. Not to mention if the other team scored a TD it is game over without even a chance to win. Just look at the possible outcomes:
Taking the ball, 2 of the 3 outcomes are points, the other a punt. Kicking the ball, 1 option is lose by a TD, the other is they kick a FG and you now HAVE to match those pts or it is a loss, third is they Punt. There are more options to win taking the ball, and other than scoring a TD, the Def has to get a stop anyways.

Field position, flow of the game, and the wind. It's as simple as that. It was a bold move and the right move. Tomlin could make that call in that exact same scenario 100 times and I wouldn't question it. If you don't see it like that...even after all the explaining people have done on here...then I'm questioning your football knowledge.

It was 100% the right call and if you disagree you are 100% wrong to be blunt about it.

[Hawkman]

Field position, flow of the game, and the wind. It's as simple as that. It was a bold move and the right move. Tomlin could make that call in that exact same scenario 100 times and I wouldn't question it. If you don't see it like that...even after all the explaining people have done on here...then I'm questioning your football knowledge.

It was 100% the right call and if you disagree you are 100% wrong to be blunt about it.

What a bitch fest this is. I had no chance of see the game yesterday, but from what I’ve read, Tomlin made a gutsy call....and I like it. Bitchers are going to bitch, no matter who is the coach......right fellas.

[GoSlash27]

What a bitch fest this is. I had no chance of see the game yesterday, but from what I’ve read, Tomlin made a gutsy call....and I like it. Bitchers are going to bitch, no matter who is the coach......right fellas.

The part I find amusing is that among the myriad events that actually did influence the outcome of this game, we have chosen to focus on the one that didn't.

[pczach]

No, I don't, and here's why: The fact that we had a backup QB hurt our chances of winning, but it did not change the correct play to maximize your chances.

Maybe we had a 42.7 percent chance of winning thanks to having a backup QB if we received, and a 37.3 percent chance of winning if we kicked. It is just a negative modifier on everything. Like, to use blackjack again, if the dealer is showing a 10, your best play is still the same whether your hand is a 12 or a 16, you just have better odds with the 12.

However, you could also argue that Baltimore's bad offensive play made up for a lot of our own disadvantage from having a backup QB, putting us right back around that original 52.7 percent. In fact, that is exactly what people are arguing. So in that case, you would take the 52.7 percent, not the 47.3 percent.

Anyway, that is what the odds say.

No, I guess it is not a back-breaking disadvantage, and most games (19 out of 20 in fact) are going to be decided by other things, which is exactly what happened. But that is still a five and a half percent swing that I don't think there was any good reason to throw away.

I get it. You believe in the numbers. I still contend that those numbers can't be quantified accurately because there are too many variables involving humans.

I admire your resolve. I am tired of going round and round on this.

Good talk...but you're still wrong!

[teegre]

2 male rabbits plus 2 female rabbits does not equal 4 rabbits total.

[stillers4me]

[teegre]

BINGO!!!

As I posted earlier in this thread:

Earlier in the game, Humphries tried the same thing, but missed... and it turned into a TD for JuJu. I’d say that if Humphries doesn’t pop that ball out, the game ends with a TD right there (Humphries wasn’t wrapping up).

[Craic]

No, I don't, and here's why: The fact that we had a backup QB hurt our chances of winning, but it did not change the correct play to maximize your chances.

Maybe we had a 42.7 percent chance of winning thanks to having a backup QB if we received, and a 37.3 percent chance of winning if we kicked. It is just a negative modifier on everything. Like, to use blackjack again, if the dealer is showing a 10, your best play is still the same whether your hand is a 12 or a 16, you just have better odds with the 12.

However, you could also argue that Baltimore's bad offensive play made up for a lot of our own disadvantage from having a backup QB, putting us right back around that original 52.7 percent. In fact, that is exactly what people are arguing. So in that case, you would take the 52.7 percent, not the 47.3 percent.

Anyway, that is what the odds say.

No, I guess it is not a back-breaking disadvantage, and most games (19 out of 20 in fact) are going to be decided by other things, which is exactly what happened. But that is still a five and a half percent swing that I don't think there was any good reason to throw away.

All of your arguing and logic keeps ignoring one major point. Dice, and cards, have no memory. There is nothing that can happen short of cheating to change chance. And, you're arguing chance. On the other hand, coaches do everything they can to minimize chance. That's a gulf between cards and football that makes any comparison a fallacy.