Playing to Win
Harlan Lachman
key play in this game.
The Saints played to win the entire game. The Colts played not to lose.
The Saints went all in and tried for TD on 4th and 1.
The Colts ran the ball three times and gave the Saints the three points
anyway.
The Colts played conservatively at the end of the first half knowing the
they were getting the ball back.
The Saints said no way.
Those who think going for a long FG cost the Colts the game had to think
the onsides kick was a fatal mistake. Except, unlike the Colts, they
Saints made it because Caldwell and his coaches lacked the capability of
considering that a team would not sit back and try not to lose -- like
the Colts.
The likeliest result of playing not to lose remains losing. There is no
guarantee that playing to win will yield victory, but it did last night.
Caldwell played not to lose when he sat Peyton and others against the
Jets and Jills. He sowed the seeds of this defeat then.
harlan
Ray O'Hara
"Harlan Lachman" <har...@eeivt.com> wrote in message
news:harlan-2EB036....@news60.forteinc.com...
> Contrary to many reports I have read, there was no turning point or one
> key play in this game.
the key to the game was the 2nd qtr.
the Saints took command of the game then
the Dolts ran 6 plays.
Grinch
wrote:
Actually the *biggest* thing that determined this game -- though
nobody will say so, and many hate to even hear the idea -- was luck.
As I've mentioned before, more than 50% of all NFL games are
determined by random chance...
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/08/luck-and-nfl-outcomes-3.html
... and in the playoffs where the quality gap between teams is a lot
smaller, it is more than that.
Which is why during even supercomputers and the Vegas casinos can't
pick more than about 70% winners (not against the spread, just W-L)
during a season. The best team wins half the time, 50%, the other
half of games are split, so the best team wins 75%. Actually a little
less. (In the playoffs, with the talent spread closer, a lot less.)
Yesterday: A perfect long pass bounces off Gracon's shoulder pad, 7
pts? Does a 14 pt lead there change the game? ... How often do teams
fail to score from the one? ... An onside kick bounces this way
instead of that -- a swing of what, maybe 7 even 14 points? ...the
odds on 2-pt plays are what? ... long field goals go through, or not?
Close games are not won by willpower or anything like that. Remember
that Lombardi's record with the Packers in one-score games was exactly
50%, and Bill Walsh's with the 49ers was 43%. What did those teams
lack? Nothing. Close games are luck. This was a close game.
Many fans and all commentator/dramatists hate this because it takes
away so many of the dramatic story lines that are made up after the
fact about "clutch play" and "choking" and "imposing one's will" and
all that stuff. But it is just plain true. For instance....
Nobody here has mentioned the part of the game where the probabilty of
the Colts winning *really* plunged -- the most of anywhere in the
whole game, a lot more than due to that final pick. Here it was:
4th Q, 13 minutes left in the game, the Colts are up by one point and
have a 4th and 2 at the N.O. 46. They *go for it*, playing to win! If
they score they'll be up by 8. And they get it!
Manning hits for Wayne for 14 yards, down to the N.O. 32. Big play!
Now the Colts are set to cement their lead. This is *objectively* the
point where the Colts had the highest probability of winning the game.
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/02/when-tide-really-turned.html
At this point I parked my car in the garage, turned off the radio
started walking back to my apartment, thinking, "they're about take
command". But by the time I got home N.O. was going in for a score to
go ahead and take control themselves.
What happened?
Well ... Nothing much. The Colts just fizzled on the next series of
downs.
Were they playing chicken? No -- there's nothing chicken about going
for it on 4th and 2 in that situation, that was going for the throat.
Was Manning choking? No -- there's nothing choking about hitting a
14-yd pass on 4th and 2.
Boomer on the radio said: "That play shows how Manning is the master.
He faked the defense into revealing its coverage, then changed the
play, Vilma didn't change the defense, and Manning hit Wayne in the
open spot perfectly. He's the best."
They just didn't get the next first down. It happens, it's a game. So
they tried a long FG, which missed. THAT's when they went *sharply*
from *probably winning* to *probably losing* -- but there are no
stories about it in the press today because, well, there are no
dramatic *stories* to make up about it after the fact.
No big turnover, nobody choked, no busted plays, can't attribute great
personal failure to anybody ... it was just a perfectly mundane
series that didn't get a first down. Like so many others. It happens,
it's a game, that's all.
Instead, everybody talks all about the pick. The pick had only a
fraction as much impact on the outcome of the game.
Manning going the length of the field in the last minutes to score was
*much less* likely than Manning going from the N.O. 32 to score!
And if he *had* gone the length of the field at the end, it would only
have tied the game and given them at best a 50/50 chance to win from
there ... while if Manning had gotten a TD from the N.O. 32 they'd
almost surely have actually won!
So why does everybody go on about the pick and ignore the much more
important failed series of downs?
Because the pick was the "dramatic last play", which is all that many
fans ever remember, and it lets them tell a story of "Manning
failing", how now he's back to not being able to win the big game, a
dramatic personal story line!
Whereas not getting another first down in a totally routine manner,
just after gutsily converting a 4th and 2 with a perfect 14 yd pass,
provides no such story opportunities -- so while much more important,
it is ignored.
There's a tremedous amount of *random chance* contributing to game
outcomes in sports. Baseball fans and commentators are well aware of
it, basketball fans are catching on, but to most football fans and all
commentators it is anathema.
They take the results due to the chance element of the game and after
the fact attribute it to "clutch players" and "chokers" and "momentum"
and "imposing one's will", and "character" and such stuff, with
stories that are made up after the fact -- thus grossly exaggerating
the effect of such things, to the extent they matter at all.
The football field really is like a casino, there are matchup
contests all over the field, subject to *chance and probabilities*
that favor one side or the other by more or less. The coaches and
decision-making players are trying to get the most out of those that
favor them, and minimize the ones against them. Amid all that balls
are bouncing and random stuff is happening beyond anybody's control.
Sometimes one team is able to physically overpower the other and win.
Top teams blow out others and bad teams get blown out. That ain't
chance.
But the closer the game is, the more important the things out of
everybody's control become. Close, one-score games are just luck.
Even for Lombard's Packers and Walsh's 49ers.
This was a close game all the way through.
BTW, while the Saints surely were "playing to win", I disagree that
the Colts were playing "not to lose". Their going for it on 4th and 2
at midfield in the 4th Q with a 1-pt lead looks like playing to win to
me.
However, just for the record, for argument's sake, let's assume that
were true.
In that case *if* the coaches of both teams agreed with the point
spread that the Colts were the favorites on the merits, then each
coach adopted the proper strategy.
The Colts should try to "play it straight" to win by being the better
team, straight-up.
The Saints should try gambles that have the chance to get them more
points if the gambles work, even if the probable result of the gambles
is a net loss of points. Because if the gambles work it improves their
chances of winning, while if they blow up it really doesn't matter if
they lose by 14 or 30 instead of 3 or 7.
Ray O'Hara
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:gjf1n5dlrha7udv4g...@4ax.com...
Yesterday a perfectly thrown pass was dropped by the Saints Colston. it was
enough for a 1st down, it killed that drive.
you know what? the Saints overcame that and still won.
so spare me the "dolts had a killer drop" whine.
both teams had them.
Johnctx
When you "play to win" & the result is a victory everyone calls you
gutsy. When it doesn't work out people call you stupid. Prevent defense
is a good example. there are times you should be in it.
I think Caldwell went with the odds on the kick off. Isn't it 60% on
surprise onside kicks. He also kept the ball from Peyton. Going for it
in the 1st half may have been "playing to win" but it also was stupid.
It deprived the Saints of 3 points that they would have needed if Peyton
does do a Favre & throw that pick 6.
I agree with you on the playing to win but always do it within the odds.
If I was Caldwell I trust Peyton on 3rd & short to pass it without a
problem from their 10. I think that was the critical decision. If Peyton
makes the 1st down NO not only gets jammed on 4th & goal but also
doesn't kick a FG to lift their team before half.
I also think we as jet fans should sympathize with the Colts & the loss
of Freeney. We had timeto adjust to losing Jenkins but how long did that
take.
Ray O'Hara
"Johnctx" <j...@spamtx.net> wrote in message
news:AJidnQJZmdpY_uzW...@giganews.com...
they still got the 3 in th 1st half.
kickinh the FG the firsttime gives the dolts the ball at the 20 with 2
minutes.
doingwhat they did left them on the 3 . one stop and they were back in
range.
Johnctx
Ok so they kick it and score three and hold them at the 20 & get the
ball back with 1:40 left. Maybe they squeeze 10 out of it instead of
three. See what I wrote how Manning should have passed on 3rd down. If
he had nothing he throws it out of bounds but 4 wide & a TB you may bust
a long play.
Sorry you take the points.
Ray O'Hara
you play differently on the 3 than you do at the 20.
Michael
"You play to win the game. Hello? You play to win the game. You don't
play it to just play it."
Herm Edwards, October 30, 2002
Michael
> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:52:50 -0500, Harlan Lachman <har...@eeivt.com> wrote:
>
> As far as turning points, an obvious easy one is the onside kick.
> But I thought, the first half had two... both on the Colts.
>
> 1) Garcon dropped a pass that he should've caught, for a 1st down. I looked at a friend
> of mine, and we both said *the Colts are toast.*
> 2) Caldwell went passive after the goal-line stand. Payton went for it, Caldwell
> didn't... game, set, match.
>
> I've always liked Payton, going back to his Giants days.
>
> Tying it into the Jets... Rexenbaum has a unique opportunity to go for it.
> With the capless season coming, they can jettison Gholston, save millions, and move on.
> Doing so will take balls - - admitting quickly that he was a mistake.
> Of course, it's possible that VG could eventually become a player, but IMHO it's a small
> gamble & worth the savings.
> It'll be interesting seeing how they handle it... I'm hopin'...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
they should jettison gholston...and i thought drafting him was a good
idea... from now on, no more high risk players in the draft... trade
down unless there is a complete prospect instead of a "boom or bust"
type like gall-stone
Johnctx
>
> As far as turning points, an obvious easy one is the onside kick.
> But I thought, the first half had two... both on the Colts.
>
> 1) Garcon dropped a pass that he should've caught, for a 1st down. I looked at a friend
> of mine, and we both said *the Colts are toast.*
> 2) Caldwell went passive after the goal-line stand. Payton went for it, Caldwell
> didn't... game, set, match.
>
> I've always liked Payton, going back to his Giants days.
>
> Tying it into the Jets... Rexenbaum has a unique opportunity to go for it.
> With the capless season coming, they can jettison Gholston, save millions, and move on.
> Doing so will take balls - - admitting quickly that he was a mistake.
> Of course, it's possible that VG could eventually become a player, but IMHO it's a small
> gamble & worth the savings.
> It'll be interesting seeing how they handle it... I'm hopin'...
They can jettison Gholston but the cap hit comes home to roost in the
first uncapped year. Having said that if he sucks take the pain & send
the message.