Yeah, I just don’t get it. It was 4th and 5 and you have 2 good WRs, a good TE, and a good pass catching back in Javonte. You also have Russell Wilson who has always been good at making something out of nothing.
Then, you have the possibility of a defensive penalty that gives you a first.
I would have been livid if the Pats did this.
You would have been livid if the Pats did this
and missed. You would have been fucking overjoyed if they hit it. You also would have been disappointed if the Patriots had gone for it and not converted, though not livid. Which was the point I was trying to make above.
I'm convinced it was a bad decision by some of what others have said, and I think said in my post that was probably the case. But there is a fair amount of hindsight and cherry picking in the Hackett pile on. There is cherry picking in the Bois stat focusing on Russell Wilson samples to suggest that a 4th and a little over 5 is easier than it is. There was a game's worth of data to suggest how easy it would have been to convert there. There is cherry picking in the stats that suggest a field goal is near impossible in the abstract, when they don't play games in the abstract. They play them in stadiums with guys who have warmed up and special teams coaches who have watched them. And there is confirmation bias in the problem that even getting a first down only makes winning easier, but certainly not guaranteed, and still may result in a long field goal try. Or a fumble. Or a holding penalty.
I'm not here to suggest that taking a 16 percent chance over a 35 percent chance (or whatever) is a good decision, and maybe that's what it was. I just react poorly to the "well it's obvious" after it happens. And when I try to make that point in the threads where people just refuse to accept that the manager's pitching decision that turned out poorly wasn't shit, I get about the same reaction. Maybe rev could explain, but as humans we don't seem to do well with judging choices between poor options in hindsight. It's smarter to hit a 15 against a dealer 10, but it doesn't mean you're not talking about small margins.
What happens on the path not taken seems always so obvious. The batter never gets a hit if the pitcher stays in (or is pulled).
To be very clear, I think I'm convinced that the idea behind my post -- that this might be evidence of boldness not stupidity -- is wrong. I'm convinced by the weight of people who have argued that. But I really would like to change the way we talk about these things. It's always so obvious in hindsight and always tilts toward piling on that people who aren't stupid are stupid and don't see what we see, which is just not correct. I'd also add that my post was in a specific context -- talking to j-man about why last night's events might suggest not that a rookie coach is a shit coach, but may actually have the stuff to be a great one.
If he really thought that there was a better chance that his kicker (who was 0-5 on 62+ yard kicks in his career)
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. This is not a way that one presents data unless one is trying to support an argument on a point they have already decided, and are looking for data to back it up. That's fine, but it's important how we have these discussions.
In fact, McManus was 0-3 in field goal attempts over 62 yards before last night. Also, picking the number "62" is pretty obviously an attempt to divert attention from the fact that he made a 61 yarder. Last year. In L.A. At sea level. Which doesn't really matter if that's the limit of his leg, because if it was then 62 is as good as 100, but still, this is sort of exactly what I'm talking about in how we hindsight these decisions.
