I didn’t change the subject - the fact that they did not defend deep does not mean they shouldn’t have. It just means the Patriots failed to take advantage of the called defense.
One would think that there was only one game played yesterday! 
(and man oh man, that game was exciting for sure).
Delhomme is definitely playing better, now that they’re basically playing a run game. Although letting him call plays seems to be a good gamble.
On the replay of that injury, I couldn’t believe it was just sprained like they had originally stated - that thing looked like it folded over like a sheet of paper. Too bad to hear that it was definitely broken, although I expected it.
Remember…the Stephen King of football.
WTF should they? Should teams have two safeties deep on fourth and goal from the one?
-
Your own cite makes it very clear that fourth-down conversions get harder and harder the closer to the goal line. This also accords with conventional wisdom and common sense.
-
I have argued that that situation was effectively a goal-line one, in that the Colts did not need to defend deep. And in actual fact, they did not, as the video makes clear.
ERGO: the chances of converting this 4th and 2 are much less than converting 4th and 2 generally.
Are you going to address the argument and the facts, or are you going to do a Diogenes impersonation?
You have not offered any reason why the Colts would not need to defend deep. Were the Patriots somehow prevented from throwing the ball 20 yards by a rule I was previously unaware of?
I know, I know. But they do have a lof of talent on that team. Not a lot of depth right now, and some serious question, but still, a lot of talent.
I agree that it’s unlikely there’d be a deep throw there, but if Moss goes running out on a fly pattern, someone has to go cover him, so whatever coverage they ran didn’t exclude deep coverage.
Blah Blah Pats Blah Blah Colts Blah Blah percentages Blah Blah Blah.
Yeesh–you’d think there was only one game over the entire weekend.
Whoo! GO CHARGERS!!! Tied for 1st! :):eek::):eek::):eek:
Yeah, I agree. I mean, sure, that game last night was pretty good, but tonight you guys get to see the Brady Quinn machine in action, and…
Well… L4D2 gets released tonight. That’s something to look forward to.
Yeah, this has to be some kind of record for excitement level disparity between the Sunday night game and the Monday night game.
Agreed on the woohoo for the Chargers
Because the deep pass posed no additional threat; a three yard pass was every bit as deadly to them as a fifty-yard pass. Given the increased difficulty of a long pass, I’d bet the Colts would have loved to see Brady try to take a seven-step drop and look deep, even knowing it’d be one-on-one coverage.
In 90% of 4th downs, the defense is trying to do two things – stop the conversion AND, as they do on every play, prevent a long gain or a touchdown. But when you get close to the goal line, the second task increasingly is less relevant. Teams defend accordingly, and offensive success becomes more difficult – as your cite bears out.
The situation last night – game over if they convert, zero increased damaged from a deep pass – presents the defense with an effectively goal-line situation. They only have to worry about one thing, not two. Thus, the guide to their odds of success is in other situations where long gains pose no additional threat. Do you seriously think the Colts should be expected to defend that play the same as they would a 4th and 2 from midfield in the 2nd quarter?
I disagree. If two receivers run down the seams then all the safeties and corners are going with them. If there was an uncovered receiver, the Pats would absolutely go there.
It’s probably a moot point since it looked like the Colts’ pass rush was about to get there, but can you imagine how devastatingly effective a hitch (or slant) & go, coupled with a pump fake, would have been? Most of the receivers were singled up for all intents and purposes, and any defender would have absolutely jumped out his shoes going for the fake.
WhoooHooo Packers!!!
Looking back the Packers season is not as bad as it seems. Or is it? A loss to TB was absolute garb age. But other than that, 2 losses to the Vikings who are one of the top three teams in the league and a loss to the Bengals that they almost pulled off, in Cincy, and the Bengals, as we are seeing are no slouches.
But, oy that offensive line…
The Cincy game was in Green Bay.
Details and facts are for nerds.
Have you watched the replay? Every single receiver was in tight man coverage. There was nobody deep. This is common in goal-line situations.
It’s not a moot point at all – the pass rush was there in part because they didn’t have to leave anyone deep and could afford to send a blitzer.
Sure, I guess. It’s not like a 5 man rush never gets picked up, though. I’m just saying that if Brady has enough time (wouldn’t need very much), a double move probably works a huge percentage of the time.
Well then there were people “covering deep” in the sense that I meant. If anyone went deep, they’d drag the coverage with them. The Colts couldn’t just sell out purely against the short pass and ignore what was deep. A good play design probably would’ve had at least one receiver running a deep route to drag away that coverage.
Btw, you ever notice that whenever people say you “play the percentages” they invariably mean “you do whatever the status quo thing is”? No one actually does estimations to figure out what the percentages is, and then declares you play the percentages. They just assume that whatever is the safest/most conservative/most common route is always right.
cricetus, I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it. Eric Mangini pulled the same boneheaded retard call last season, torpedoing the Jets season and getting him run out of town on a rail. (Minutes later to be snatched up by Cleveland. WTF?) The stat weenies on the board all rushed in to defend Mangini’s call even though it was clearly and obviously moronic even if you’re playing Madden. But oh no, anytime anyone goes for it on fourth down it has to be smart. Sure.
No, they really aren’t. Go back and reeread your post where you just arbitrarily inflated them to suit your position and then claimed the results as fact.
In fact, all the numbers in this thread are made up. You guys keep adding percentages because Peyton’s expected to be better than average at driving down the field and scoring. How many possessions did Peyton have in that very same game, and how many punts did the Colts have to kick? By all accounts in this thread, the Colts must have scored 7 or 8 touchdowns that game. Please, tell me the Colts TD drive % during the game in the same sentence as you tell me the Colts expected chance of scoring a TD after a punt.
You guys also keep inflating the Patriots success as short yardage above average. The Patriots had just demonstrated difficulty in converting that short yardage on the play before. That’s compelling reason to punt it. If it were so easy, why’d they just fail? Even worse, they to another short out just like the play before when it was nearly intercepted. All season long the Patriots haven’t been the moster converters they’ve been in years past, so it’s even more dubious to arbitrarily inflate their expected success rate over league average.
Also, sure, Peyton had just driven down the field in 2 minutes to put up a touchdown. Know what happened after his first 2 minute fourth quarter TD drive? He threw a pick on the first play. So TD, failure, TD, ???. What comes next in that progression?
It was not a close call. It was patently stupid.