Welcome back E/O, leagl and Fringey: no one say the name "Penske" 3 times in a row

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Definitely somewhere across midfield, where a punt is likely to net only 20-30 yards.

I think this is the appropriate grey zone, not your own 30. In the situation you bring up, if you have a punter who can place it inside the 20 yard line in that situation, I say, punt it. If you don't, it might make sense to go for it. But I still think the appropriate determination is to decide how far in total the other team will have to go if you punt vs. if you go for it and fail.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

What's remarkable is that 5 years ago Bellicheck was in Peyton's head, and Manning couldn't solve anything Bellicheck did. Now it's the other way around--Bellichek is afraid of Manning regardless. If the Colts fans were sharper, they would have started in with a "Who's Your Daddy?" chant.

I think you're overstating. Peyton's not in Belichick's head. His defense is just not as good, no? Or, at least Belichick doesn't think so.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

ETA: Here's the clearest analysis of whether the decision made sense, and this guy says "yes". He also notes that the third-down pass was more misguided if the plan was to go for it anyway.

"Sheer data, which Burke has compiled and stored like a librarian, argues the point. On average, an offense operating outside the red zone will make the first down on fourth and 2 60 percent of the time. When teams face the situation the Colts would have had if the Patriots failed - two minutes left, needing a touchdown, at roughly the opposing 30 - they score 53 percent of the time."

This does nothing for me. Unless he has crunched the numbers for these two teams and their tendencies this season, why would you depend on these numbers to make a decision. It's like Girardi pulling a right hander who is on fire, striking out the first two batters in an inning, to replace him with a lefty to face a lefty based on the league numbers of lefties facing lefties. If we're going to go solely by league average numbers, why do we have coaches at all?

"Now, what if the Patriots had punted? On average, the net punt would have been 38 yards, and the Colts would have taken over on their 34. Statistically, teams will score 30 percent of the time in that situation, meaning a punt gave the Patriots the 70 percent chance to win."

Will score what? A touchdown? A field goal? And, again, this speaks to league averages versus the numbers of the Patriots and Colts. If Belichick stood up and said, "Based on how our defense was playing [or, more appropriately for a head coach, how the Colts had moved the ball the last few possessions], I felt like we had a better chance trying to pick up the two yards," I would disagree, but at least we'd have an explanation (and maybe he's said this, although, based on past press conferences, I doubt it). But these "on average" stats don't mean much, in my opinion. Especially since we all know he would have punt the ball if the game was 6-0 and they were playing the Raiders.

TM

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally Posted by oliver_wendell_ramone

you know, if you had serious responsibilities within the sting fan club, you, too, might have little time for this board.

potd.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

irrelevant? you get that if they get sacked the game is over, right? it's not just a longer down.

So don't get sacked. You can't take a sack at your 20 at that point because it burns a huge amount of time. Besides, Manning knows how to throw the ball away and not run out of the back of the endzone (hi, Dan Orlovsky!). The major downside of a safety during the rest of the game is that you turn the ball over and give up good field position, which aren't issues at this point.

[Sparklehorse]

Originally Posted by evenodds

Lesson from the weekend: two strong cocktails in an hour is all I need to tell you all about my sex life.

Related: if you ask me direct questions, I will answer.

Now, we all know how each couple does or does not prevent pregnancy, what everyone thinks is a non-Vanilla activity, and that my friends are surprisingly prudish.

Last lesson: a man should never use the word "buttsex." It just makes you look ridiculous and sexually inexperienced.

During the discussion I participated in last night, I'm glad to report that anal sex was referred to as just that.

On a related note, since the search feature is still disabled here (right?), I need a definitional review for the term "blowjob camel." It means "recipient who makes the blow job last and last" or something else?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think you're overstating. Peyton's not in Belichick's head. His defense is just not as good, no? Or, at least Belichick doesn't think so.

Maybe, maybe not. They stopped him 6 times in the first half and a couple more in the second half. So the question is why he thought they didn't stand a decent chance of doing it this time. I think in the press conferences he basically said what you did, although not explicitly, which is he figured the odds of getting the first down were better than the odds of holding them on a ~70 yard drive. As for the stats, good points, if he failed to account for them. Although I doubt the data are rich enough to determine meaningfully how the Pats convert on 4th and 2 (1 for 1 I think) this year.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I now listen to Belle & Sebastian, and regret that I had not started doing so when you first mentioned them.

And the Ducks are apparently no longer Mighty. My friend the Giggy fan from the OC told me that.

I bought and listened to a couple of Belle & Sebastian albums on his recommendation and they really didn't do much for me. I always assumed that is why he left. The shame.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Maybe, maybe not. They stopped him 6 times in the first half and a couple more in the second half. So the question is why he thought they didn't stand a decent chance of doing it this time. I think in the press conferences he basically said what you did, although not explicitly, which is he figured the odds of getting the first down were better than the odds of holding them on a ~70 yard drive. As for the stats, good points, if he failed to account for them. Although I doubt the data are rich enough to determine meaningfully how the Pats convert on 4th and 2 (1 for 1 I think) this year.

I like King's take on it. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...mqb/index.html

"Two things had to factor in here. One: Belichick didn't want to give Manning the ball with two minutes to go; he'd just seen Manning take the Colts 79 yards in six plays for a touchdown. Two: He trusted Brady to get two yards. Let's place the odds of Brady getting two yards at 60, 65 percent. The odds of Manning going 72 yards to score a touchdown in less than two minutes ... that's maybe 35 percent.

You might say Manning's chance of taking his team 72 yards are better than 35 percent. Not sure I would. On his previous seven possessions, covering about 30 minutes of game time, Manning had done the following:

· Six plays, 79 yards, touchdown.

· One play, zero yards, interception.

· Five plays, 79 yards, touchdown.

· Six plays, 16 yards, punt.

· Four plays, 24 yards, interception.

· Five plays, 16 yards, punt.

· Three plays, no yards, punt.

Three punts, two interceptions, two touchdowns. Now, maybe Belichick thought his defense was tired. Maybe he feared Manning. Maybe he trusted Brady. Whatever, the faulty logic here is that Manning was a sure thing to ram it down the Patriots' throats. Yes, he'd just done that, but on the series previous to that one he'd thrown a interception, his second of the night. So if the theory was Manning was going to score for sure, I don't buy it."

TM

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Sparklehorse

During the discussion I participated in last night, I'm glad to report that anal sex was referred to as just that.

On a related note, since the search feature is still disabled here (right?), I need a definitional review for the term "blowjob camel." It means "recipient who makes the blow job last and last" or something else?

Granted that my memory of board discussions past is somewhat faulty (hence my thinking the ex-Mr. BnB was a fireman).....

But I thought PP used the term for a guy whose requests for frequent blowjobs was like a camel storing up water for future shortages.

[ltl/fb]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

potd.

And so early!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Fair enough. We can also use the Belechik decision calculator to sort this one out.

In other news, I ended up watching bits of the fantastic Browns/Ravens MNF game last night. Not for anything resembling good football, necessarily, but I think I saw in the vacant and frightened eyes of Brady Quinn and in the restless anger of the Cleveland stands something resembling Abject Failure as Performance Art.

We're no longer allowed to watch Cleveland games in my household. They just make everyone angry and/or depressed.

So I walked into the gym this morning, and my dad was just leaving. He said, "That was the most embarrassing display of professional football I've ever seen. Tell him to keep not watching."

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally Posted by Fugee

So, men of the FB, raise or fold?

I'm gonna answer truthfully: fold.

Aside from the fact that she's not my type, even if she looked like Angelina, I doubt I could keep up with the 10x a day thing for more than a short period of time (i.e. half a day).

[evenodds]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Here you are: Then please answer the above question directly.

As I said, I did not realize how prudish some of my friends are about sex, so their line is really not that interesting.

I do not think anal is incredibly exotic, where some of them clearly do. It's not that they haven't necessarily done it (not everyone was forthcoming), it's that they considered it exotic, like "ewww, buttsex," where I consider it "Tuesday."

We also discussed blowjobs to completion, which I do consider exotic. It appears that among my friends bjtc occur very rarely, with most of my friends using them as I do -- foreplay.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by evenodds

Anal would have been fine.

"Buttsex" sounds too much like "eewww, buttsex," as uttered by a 13 year old boy.

I understand people have different interests, kinks, and proclivities, but discuss it like a grownup.

If you're using "buttsex," you're already out of your depth, because there is no way you have anything approaching adequate experience to discuss any form of sex.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck

I'm gonna answer truthfully: fold.

Aside from the fact that she's not my type, even if she looked like Angelina, I doubt I could keep up with the 10x a day thing for more than a short period of time (i.e. half a day).

Anal sex is discussed and...

Here you are.

Shocking.

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Anal sex is discussed and...

Here you are.

Shocking.

I just got to those posts.

Eerie.