That let them score stategy does not work

seaborneq · 02-13-12, 07:59 AM

As I said. This information should not change your opinion. You believe what you believe. The historical data from the last 11 years says it did not increase their chances of winning versus letting them kick the fg. Now stop your adding your own variances to fit your argument. The patriots situation fell into the 2 out of 63 chance of working. They gave you historical parameters of the situation. Now everyone wants to add something(timeouts, pats qb, giants defense, letting them score earlier, etc) to change it the percentage. Don't do that, take the information and be informed and learn something.

seaborneq · 02-13-12, 08:05 AM

If the patriots offense was better than the giants defense, wouldnt the pats reach or exceed their scoring average in the regular season or playoffs against the giants? Not even close, more than a two td difference in 07 and about a two td difference in the regular season and nearly 18 points less than the playoffs for this season.

smoke a bowl · 02-13-12, 09:59 AM

This reminds me of a debate class in school where you have to argue for one side no matter how wrong it is. The good news here is this is not debate class Seaborn so you stop trying to make ridiculous arguements about something you are 100% wrong about.

poochiecollins · 02-15-12, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by seaborneq

If the patriots offense was better than the giants defense, wouldnt the pats reach or exceed their scoring average in the regular season or playoffs against the giants? Not even close, more than a two td difference in 07 and about a two td difference in the regular season and nearly 18 points less than the playoffs for this season.

07 was years ago and a bit different rosters. This year, New England's offense was third in scoring, second in yardage and first in fewest turnovers. NY's defense was 27th in total yardage allowed, 25th in points allowed, and tied for 5th-7th in most turnovers. Holy shit, I didn't realize how bad NY's defense was before looking that up. I understand that the Giants had enough momentum to make them just about equal with New England come the Super Bowl, but not enough to say that this Giants 'D' was equal to the Patriots 'O.'

To answer your match-up point, part of the reason is that the Giants probably match up well with the Patriots, the other part being variance. The two games this season, and the other Super Bowl a few years ago if you want to go that far, were all very close. A luckier bounce or two could have won the Patriots either of those games.

C-Gold · 02-15-12, 11:07 PM

The Giants defense sucked for much of the year, but 1-2 of their top pass rushers were always hurt. Tuck/Osi were hurt the whole year. Plus the Giants had the hardest schedule for any playoff team. That's why you had to ignore some of their record. Look at that schedule in the middle of the year.

GB
@ NE
@ SF
@ NO
Dal
Philly

all in a number of weeks. Look at the Patriots schedule. The Giants had harder teams in a 5 week stretch than the Patriots did all year. The Giants swept the AFC East this year, they beat NE, Buffalo, Miami and Jets. If they played in the AFC East and had the pats schedule they would have probably went 13-3 too.

d2bets · 02-16-12, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by poochiecollins

07 was years ago and a bit different rosters. This year, New England's offense was third in scoring, second in yardage and first in fewest turnovers. NY's defense was 27th in total yardage allowed, 25th in points allowed, and tied for 5th-7th in most turnovers. Holy shit, I didn't realize how bad NY's defense was before looking that up. I understand that the Giants had enough momentum to make them just about equal with New England come the Super Bowl, but not enough to say that this Giants 'D' was equal to the Patriots 'O.'

To answer your match-up point, part of the reason is that the Giants probably match up well with the Patriots, the other part being variance. The two games this season, and the other Super Bowl a few years ago if you want to go that far, were all very close. A luckier bounce or two could have won the Patriots either of those games.

No doubt. Fact is if Welker doesn't muff a 95% catch, the Pats are 90% to win. That's how close this was to being a different story. I'm not trying to pin ti all on Welker at all, he otherwise had a good game, just stating the truth.

poochiecollins · 02-17-12, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by darkhat

You should of seen all these idiots I work with watching the games in their offices, running out yelling how great the blocking was on the run and how they dominated that play. I'm like are you all fukin morons.

Wowwwww. And that's with the announcer who couldn't make it any more clear what was going on. Lol.

poochiecollins · 02-17-12, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by pro-style

At the 2 minute mark they were on the NE18 and it was a 1st down. The Patriots had 2 timeouts at this point so the giants no matter what would have been able to run the clock down to about ~minute. The difference between a 35 yarder and an 18 yarder is X%. The difference between Brady scoring in 0:57 or 1:50 is Y% (with 2 timeouts). Which is higher? Should have let them score earlier IMO.

I wanted to research the topic after reading your post and came upon this (scroll down). The Giants percentage of making an ~18 yarder would be mid to high 90s. A ~36 yarder would be low to high 80s. It's 10-15% difference, but there's also the chance of stopping the Giants and having a little over a minute, I think, and no timeouts but only needing a field goal. If you figure at that point that the Giants were pretty likely to get another first down, then you let them score a TD from their 18. At the very least, as spoken by many, the Pats should have let them score a TD a play earlier (2nd and 3, chances are the Giants get another first down).

SparJMU · 02-17-12, 08:24 AM

With these terrible attempts, seaborn basically lost any ounce of credibility that he ever had.

poochiecollins · 02-17-12, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by d2bets

Letting him score was correct, HOWEVER, if the Pats had stopped them on 2nd and 3rd downs, they would not have the clock out. I figure NE would have been down 1 with about 12-15 seconds left and 0 TO's. Nearly impossible, but they still would have had the ball. Scored TD at 0:57. That was a 2nd yards run. Call TO at 0:56. 3rd down and if they come up short we're at maybe 0:51, clock runs to about 0:15. Call TO kick FG and we're down to :11 or :12. Still, letting them score there was 100% right, TD with 0:57 and 1 TO is more likely than a FG with 0:11 and no TO. Missing a PAT type FG is less than 1%. I'd say letting them score increased they're chance to win from about 5% to over 10%.

The Giants had 1st down, 18 YL, at the 2 minute warning. If the Patriots stop them while using both time outs and force a field goal, they get just over a minute with no timeouts but only need a field goal. As I wrote in the post above this, I believe, that's IF you think the Pats' D had a good chance of stopping the Giants' O at that point.

Once it was 2nd and third at the 11 YL, you figure the Giants will probably pick up another first down and run the clock out more, so it's more obvious to cut your losses and let them score a TD.

poochiecollins · 02-17-12, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by 5mike5

such a great feeling needing them -3.5 on the alt. line...like a great story book ending

Haha, congrats. I would've bet on the Giants if I didn't really want Eli to lose since he called himself elite.

poochiecollins · 02-17-12, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by seaborneq

If its such a great strategy why don't coaches do it during the regular season. They let the clock run down and try to ice the kicker. Do teams think that it's a great idea in the super bowl but a stupid idea during the regular season?

How often does the situation this specific even come up? Secondly, you're questioning Belichick.

poochiecollins · 02-17-12, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by d2bets

That was the 1 in 100. Meanwhile, Tynes has made at least 134 PAT's in a row, has never missed inside 20 and has made at least 24 in a row inside 30. He would have been 99% to make the FG. Brady had better than the 1% chance to get the TD on that possession. This whole thing isn't even really debatable.

Scorpion · 02-17-12, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by poochiecollins

How often does the situation this specific even come up? Secondly, you're questioning Belichick.

Fukk Bellycheat

This motherfukker is 0-2 in legit super bowls

Scorpion · 02-17-12, 11:32 AM

letting the giants core was a stupid decision

smoke a bowl · 02-17-12, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Scorpion

letting the giants core was a stupid decision

What about letting them score?

Scorpion · 02-17-12, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by poochiecollins

This year, New England's offense was third in scoring, second in yardage and first in fewest turnovers. NY's defense was 27th in total yardage allowed, 25th in points allowed, and tied for 5th-7th in most turnovers. Holy shit, I didn't realize how bad NY's defense was before looking that up..

this is all bullshit since NEs scehdule was so easy and NYGs schedule was harder, also the NYGs defense was not healthy during the reg season

The Pats played only 4 teams with winning records and were 1-3 and really should have been 0-4 if the Ravens WR does not drop the ball in the end zone

The Giants were the better team and should have been favored, the refs killed 2 of their drives with a bad call and a no call otherwise the Giants win by 10+ points

seaborneq · 02-17-12, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by poochiecollins

How often does the situation this specific even come up? Secondly, you're questioning Belichick.

All teams should stay at home next year and NOT play the Patriots, Belichick is too good to be second guessed. 63 times since 2001 plus once in the GB/Denver Super Bowl. That is a lot of times. 2 teams of the 63 scored, but none allowed the other team to just walk in the end zone.