• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

NFL Super Bowl XLIX Sunday Game Thread

Can you imagine how much whining we'd be hearing out of Boston if they lost that game after that catch? Unbearable.
 
Everybody criticized Rodgers for admitting he would not throw at Sherman. Brady threw at him once.
 
NBC says the Super Bowl delivered a 49.7 overnight rating, highest ever in Super Bowl history.
 
palmab03 said:
To clarify, im willing to bet that pass, run, run had a higher win probability than run, run in that case. Someone else will be posting that article in the next few days, so then we'll let the math nerds decide
Click to expand...

went back and found your "bet" proposal

i doubt anyone would agree to these dumb terms, because run/run wasn't the only other viable option on the table to finish the game

as many have said, pass isn't the worst idea on second down though the play call was abysmal even given the package

still, run pass run is still on the table with a timeout too
 
89DeaconMike said:
Everybody criticized Rodgers for admitting he would not throw at Sherman. Brady threw at him once.
Click to expand...

There was no reason too, plus their play calling was all about clearing out the good DBs and pick on Kam and the LBs underneath.
 
Here's the negative play data for what it's worth. Not saying Seattle didn't screw up

Plays from the 1 since 2005:

21 int and 6 fumbles on 925 pass plays, 2.9%
68 fumbles on 2457 run plays, 2.8%

3 offensive holding calls on pass plays and 9 on run plays
 
FckVwls said:
Here's the negative play data for what it's worth. Not saying Seattle didn't screw up

Plays from the 1 since 2005:

21 int and 6 fumbles on 925 pass plays, 2.9%
68 fumbles on 2457 run plays, 2.8%

3 offensive holding calls on pass plays and 9 on run plays
Click to expand...

Most goalline pass plays are fades, not trying to jam it in between multiple defenders. I'm somewhat okay with the decision to throw it, just not the decision to throw it there. And maybe that is more on Wilson than it is Carroll.
 
FckVwls said:
Here's the negative play data for what it's worth. Not saying Seattle didn't screw up

Plays from the 1 since 2005:

21 int and 6 fumbles on 925 pass plays, 2.9%
68 fumbles on 2457 run plays, 2.8%

3 offensive holding calls on pass plays and 9 on run plays
Click to expand...

Do you similarly have stats for lost yards on passes vs runs? Like sacks or carries for loss or completed passes for loss? It does seem like those would also be necessary to complete the #gametheoryexpert analysis.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Most goalline pass plays are fades, not trying to jam it in between multiple defenders. I'm somewhat okay with the decision to throw it, just not the decision to throw it there. And maybe that is more on Wilson than it is Carroll.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I definitely agree that the Seahawks called a higher than average risk 1 yard line pass.

Even as called the pass from Russ wasn't too good. I think you want to keep it lower on your goal line slants in general.
 
There is absolutely NO REASON to throw the ball at all on the goal line on 2nd down with a TO and the beast in the back field. :(

Wilson should have checked out of that dumb ass OC play call and fed the beast for a Seattle back-to-back SB win! Instead, now we have the worst play call in the history of the SB.
 
I'd also like a game theory expert to weigh in on the differential EV against the goal line package.
 
Not really sure why Townie is trolling me so badly, I already told you I thought the pass called was a mistake, just posting information that is out there that is semi-relevant that could be interesting to some
 
it's not about you, fckvwls, i'm interested in seeing if palma is even remotely correct - i appreciate you bringing actual data to the table
 
Throw should have been low and towards back shoulder. Prolly incomplete at worst with a better throw.
 
89DeaconMike said:
Seattle defense was at about 50% and it still took a dumb play call for them to lose. If they were at full strength it would have probably been just like last year. Only thing Brady could get off was two yard passes. They had two guys playing with one arm, one guy playing on one leg and then lost two more to a concussion and a broken arm.
Click to expand...

That was the entire point of the dink and dunk offense for most of the night. Take what they give you for sure underneath and hope to loosen them up downfield. By the time the 4th quarter rolled around, Brady was throwing downfield much more often (of course it helped that they were down 10). You can't fault the Pats for that. It beats running the ball for 3 yards/pop with their shitty running game. There is nothing wrong with nickel and diming to your advantage, especially if you have the QB who can do it.
 
Weird logic from Carroll:

"We were going to run the ball in to win the game, but not on that play," Carroll said. "I didn't want to waste a run play on their goal-line guys. It was a clear thought, but it didn't work out right. The guy [Butler] made a play that no one would have thought he could make."
 
Plama was wrong:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2013/closer-look-touchdowns-red-zone

McGovern2.jpg


At first glance, this hardly tells us anything we don’t know about today’s NFL. Except at the opponent’s 1-yard line, a passing play is typically preferable to running on any given play, and the probability of scoring a touchdown on any given play is lower the farther a team gets from the opponent’s end zone.

However, because running plays are more likely to result in a positive gain that does not score, probability may dictate that certain combinations of play choices are preferable to passing. For example, electing to pass on all three downs from the 5-yard line results in a 66.4 percent chance of scoring a touchdown on average, assuming that no play ends in a sack and field position does not change due to penalty. On the other hand, running three times from the 5 seems like it would be a worse choice. However, if the play can be assumed to achieve a positive result -– either gain two yards or score –- on each of first and second down, the probability of scoring a touchdown increases to 74.6 percent if a running play is called on third down, or 70.7 percent if a passing play is called.
Of course, this all rests on the competence of the rushing player and his offensive line. If you expect that a running play will gain one yard or score from the 5 and then pass on third down from the 3-yard line, the probability of scoring a touchdown is only 58.9 percent -- in other words, the offense with a below-average running game would be significantly better off passing three times from the 5.
While many teams choose to pass the ball on third-and-goal from the 1-yard line, the chance of scoring a touchdown is actually 12 percent lower when passing on third down as opposed to running. The standard selection of plays on first through third down from the 1 results in a touchdown 88.9 percent of the time, but running on all three downs increases this to 90.4 percent -- a small but not insignificant difference.
Therefore, inside the opponent’s 5-yard line, running is generally preferable to passing assuming a coach has some confidence in the ability of his running back and offensive line to gain positive yardage on a given play. Moreover, the chance of a catastrophic loss of yardage that would make scoring a touchdown on subsequent plays very unlikely is much lower for rushing plays than for passing plays, not only because of sacks, but because of the possibility of offensive holding penalties.
Conor McGovern is a lifelong Patriots fan who remembers days when trips to the red zone were rare enough that any bit of help for Tommy Hodson or Hugh Millen was a godsend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top