our coaching staff is well below our old one.

[cubzzzfanincali]

But there is absolutely no gaurantee that they gain positive yards.....ZERO. so you are in fact saying no matter what it would have been different had he gone for it on 1st, 3rd or 4th down? That is the most BONEHEADED STATEMENT EVER!!!!! Any number of scenarios could have happened. The way the game was going and the bizarre calls. I was ecstatic he choose to kick it on 2nd down, absolutely thought there was zero chance the most accurate kicker in nfl history would miss a staight on 47 yd fg in a fucking dome.

Statistics don't really back you up on this. True, no one ever knows anything, but odds are pretty high that positive yards would have been gained and the FG try would have been shorter when it came if Trestman hadn't decided to do that.

That being said, you can't really blame Neil Gould "for the season" any more than you can any numbers of other players who didn't make the plays at any point in any close game the Bears lost. Gould made a lot of great plays too, and so did other "goats" of certain games. Ultimately, the Bears just didn't have enough often enough.

 

[Smart]

But there is absolutely no gaurantee that they gain positive yards.....ZERO. so you are in fact saying no matter what it would have been different had he gone for it on 1st, 3rd or 4th down? That is the most BONEHEADED STATEMENT EVER!!!!! Any number of scenarios could have happened. The way the game was going and the bizarre calls. I was ecstatic he choose to kick it on 2nd down, absolutely thought there was zero chance the most accurate kicker in nfl history would miss a staight on 47 yd fg in a fucking dome. Hell I would be confident he would make it at home. So would 99% of Bears fans. I love a coach who won't be held down by what ifs and second guessing. The problem with any of your odds is that in reality it is always 50/50.

I'm the kid of a statistician. I think the right decision is the one which has the greatest odds of leading to the win. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the odds are always 50/50. So a 70 yard field goal has the same odds as a 25 yarder? They both have a 50% chance of going in? Uh, that's simply ridiculous.

You have to figure out which gives you a better chance of winning. Some are hard, but this one isn't.

Taking out his first NFL season (when he struggled a bit), Robbie is 62-82 between 40 and 49. That's 75%. 47 is on the high side of that, so figure he has about a 72% chance of making it.

Forte had averaged 5.2 YPC and has lost fumbles on about one out of every 200 carries. They had not lost a fumble in the red zone all season. Forte has negative rushing yards on about 10% of carries. I'm not going to do the entire math, but the odds that we fumble is about 1%. The odds that we lose yards over two carries is about 2%. The odds that we get the ball further inside was about 95%. The odds that we score if we run the ball with Forte was somewhere around 90%.

Going from a 90% chance of winning to a 72% chance of winning is a big fucking deal. He had two minutes to figure it out since Minnesota wasted their timeouts. And he still screwed up. Not only was it troubling, but it was a huge slap in the face to the defense. People aren't perfect, and i'm glad he's not dwelling on his mistake, but it was a huge mistake. Pretending it wasn't is bizarre and just gives him more reason to make another.

 

[leomaz]

When you have a choice....like making or missing a Fg. only 2 things will happen. You will make it or miss it. There are circumstances as to why you made it or missed it but in reality you can only make it or miss it. Hence 50/50

 

[leomaz]

Your stats are only that.. stats
They are never 100% accurate so they are useless in this. Everything is 50/50

 

[leomaz]

So if Robbie had made it....the other side of missing it which are the only 2 chances we had. Your stats would be mute and remade. So they are ever changing and once again useless. stats should never be used in such arguments. If robbie had missed his only 5 fgs from 47 yards how do you ever kick from that yardage using your stat logic?

 

[leomaz]

And you made the worst blunder in your arguement. You used the "if we take out". Blah blah blah. If we take out the fgs robbie missed from 47 yards he would be at 100% . Asinine at best

 

[leomaz]

You have to figure out which gives you a better chance of winning. Some are hard, but this one isn't.

The better chance of winning is always making the fg....... Period.

 

[leomaz]

The odds that Forte fumbles is 1% but in reality he would have a 50/50 chance on that carry to fumble. That is the way life works that is the way stats get their percentages. Fuck your stats. Do you live you life by stats?

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

When you have a choice....like making or missing a Fg. only 2 things will happen. You will make it or miss it. There are circumstances as to why you made it or missed it but in reality you can only make it or miss it. Hence 50/50

I'm no statistician, but that's ridiculous. Saying there are two potential outcomes is not the same thing as saying both potential outcomes have an equal chance of occurring. If that were true, it's like saying there's a 50-50 chance your plane will crash, when in fact the chance is quite puny. Everything in life isn't a coin flip.

 

[leomaz]

stats are even more ridiculous.

I'm no statistician, but that's ridiculous. Saying there are two potential outcomes is not the same thing as saying both potential outcomes have an equal chance of occurring. If that were true, it's like saying there's a 50-50 chance your plane will crash, when in fact the chance is quite puny. Everything in life isn't a coin flip.

The percentage of crashing is puny but in reality you are either going to land or crash.I understand you can't use tat to make a decision but it is the truth. Its not an absolute and neither are the stats that he is trying to use. If robbie attempts a fg in reality it will go thru the up rights or it won't . Saying that if he moved up x amount of yards will make it guarantees nothing. Missing it or making it just changes the stat it doesn't guarantee nothing...Nothing is 100% guaranteed in life except maybe death. Relying on stats to predict an outcome doesn't work. It just gives you something to consider. Just because matt doesn't fumble on x amount of carries doesn't mean he cannot fumble on the next carry. Stars are just percentages of what happened, not what's going to happen

 

[Smart]

I'm just super confused by your logic. If you are on the tenth floor of a building, how will you get down?

If you jump, there is a chance that you will survive. People have survived free falls of thousands of feet from planes before, so we know there is a CHANCE that you will survive.

If you take the stairs, there is a CHANCE that you will trip and fall to your death.

And we know that if you jump, you will get down quicker. And there are only two choices: Either you live or you die. So if you really don't believe in stats or analyzing chance, the proper step would be to jump down ten stories. But of course, you wouldn't. Because the irony is you follow statistics and chance intuitively. If you didn't, you would have died years ago.

Moving the football up guarantees nothing, much like taking the stairs does not guarantee you won't fall to your death. But much like taking the stairs, moving the ball up significantly improves the chance of getting an optimal result.

The argument that "anything could have happened so we shouldn't care about odds or stats" is certifably stupid, and if you really believe it, I just hope there is nobody standing beneath you the next time you are in a highrise.

 

[Smart]

So if Robbie had made it....the other side of missing it which are the only 2 chances we had. Your stats would be mute and remade. So they are ever changing and once again useless. stats should never be used in such arguments. If robbie had missed his only 5 fgs from 47 yards how do you ever kick from that yardage using your stat logic?

If Robbie had a huge sample size and always missed 47 yard field goals, I wouldn't kick a 47 yard field goal with Robbie. Is it that hard to understand? Do you scream at the TV every time the bears punt from their own 20 yard line...or do you realize that it is unlikely that Gould would hit a 97 yard field goal?

 

[Smart]

The percentage of crashing is puny but in reality you are either going to land or crash.I understand you can't use tat to make a decision but it is the truth. Its not an absolute and neither are the stats that he is trying to use. If robbie attempts a fg in reality it will go thru the up rights or it won't . Saying that if he moved up x amount of yards will make it guarantees nothing. Missing it or making it just changes the stat it doesn't guarantee nothing...Nothing is 100% guaranteed in life except maybe death. Relying on stats to predict an outcome doesn't work. It just gives you something to consider. Just because matt doesn't fumble on x amount of carries doesn't mean he cannot fumble on the next carry. Stars are just percentages of what happened, not what's going to happen

It is amazing that somebody could think this. I mean, you should be in a museum somewhere. Seriously, it's fascinating.

Relying on stats to predict an outcome doesn't work? I mean, sure, it doesn't work with 100% certainty, but it can make you more likely to be correct. How can you possibly function if you don't place any faith in the past when it comes to predicting the future?

Do you think JaMarcus Russell is a better QB than Tom Brady? Why?

Do you think it is going to be warmer in August than it was yesterday in Chicago? Why?

Do you think it is safer to walk in your front yard than it is to walk in an expressway? Why?

Do you think it is smart to kick a field goal every time you reach the 30? Why?

 

[leomaz]

stats had nothing to do with it.

It is amazing that somebody could think this. I mean, you should be in a museum somewhere. Seriously, it's fascinating.

Relying on stats to predict an outcome doesn't work? I mean, sure, it doesn't work with 100% certainty, but it can make you more likely to be correct. How can you possibly function if you don't place any faith in the past when it comes to predicting the future?

Do you think JaMarcus Russell is a better QB than Tom Brady? Why?

Do you think it is going to be warmer in August than it was yesterday in Chicago? Why?

Do you think it is safer to walk in your front yard than it is to walk in an expressway? Why?

Do you think it is smart to kick a field goal every time you reach the 30? Why?

None of these question have anything to do with Trestman making the right call kicking that field goal. Matter of fact they are stupid questions that happen because of physics and not stats. Using common sense will get you the answer if you have a half of a brain. The only reason it is a bonehead call to.you is because robbie missed it. If he makes it you are calling him a genius. In reality he had a 50/50 chance of making the right decision. So you can live in a museum all you like because stats are not guarantees. EVER.

 

[leomaz]

what kind of sense is this

If Robbie had a huge sample size and always missed 47 yard field goals, I wouldn't kick a 47 yard field goal with Robbie. Is it that hard to understand? Do you scream at the TV every time the bears punt from their own 20 yard line...or do you realize that it is unlikely that Gould would hit a 97 yard field goal?

Nothing you have said here is worth a lick of sense.

 

[flaraider]

Lovie was a better coach then Tresman. Tresman has the better GM. The offense is better because of better talent, something we did not do for Lovie. This whole staff is far worse then our old one. From the D coach to the STs coach we downgraded. I,m not even sure the O coaching is better, just more talent to work with. Sorry about the venting but it needs to be said.

I just want to say that I like Trestman a lot. He represents for the last time my team had a solid coaching staff and that showed on the field. Aside from the "playbook" whammy in our last SB he was very capable and built a great offense around Rich Gannon.

I think you guys are lucky to have him, you will get better, and I can only hope that Dennis Allen will be as successful.

 

[Smart]

None of these question have anything to do with Trestman making the right call kicking that field goal. Matter of fact they are stupid questions that happen because of physics and not stats. Using common sense will get you the answer if you have a half of a brain. The only reason it is a bonehead call to.you is because robbie missed it. If he makes it you are calling him a genius. In reality he had a 50/50 chance of making the right decision. So you can live in a museum all you like because stats are not guarantees. EVER.

No, and there may be a record on this site of me saying it is stupid before he kicked it. I definitely texted a friend before the kick saying, "I pray to God this is a ploy to waste their TOs and he isn't stupid enough to kick it."

People can make decisions which wind up working that were still undeniably stupid. Les Miles has made a career doing it. If you lower your chance of winning, it was by definition a poor decision. Or to go back to the earlier example, if I jumped off a ten story balcony and escaped injury-free, it still would be a stupid decision. Or if I ran in the middle of I-90 and managed to cross unharmed, it would till be a stupid decision.

The bolded sentence is, again, flabbergasting, and it shows that you misunderstand basic logic. Results aren't random. This is 1st Grade stuff here. And if you believe that results aren't random, you haven't explained why it doesn't make sense to try 60 yarder on 1st down normally. Or a 70 yarder. Or a 97 yarder. Because if numbers aren't predictive at all, those are just as likely to go in as 25 yard field goal.

 

[leomaz]

Physics and common sense are better suited to come up with answers than your stats. Sorry, I stand by what I say. There is not 1 example you can come up with to prove that it was a boneheaded call except that Robbie Gould missed an fairly easy fg attempt for him. Regardless if it was anyother down he still would have missed it. It is pure speculation to say the Bears would have gained more yards or they would not have fumbled or had a penalty called. In the end there was still a 50/50 chance he would make that and any subsequent fgs. ......sorry that's stone cold reality.

 

[LoftonPack80]

You can't predict specific injuries, but you can definitely predict that injuries will hit, and hit key guys. Same is true for every team in the league. Yeah we wod have hit 11 if healthy, but if our opponents were all healthy, we wouldn't have won 6.

I think it's premature to just Trestman yet. On really anything. Head coaches need time to establish their creds. One big thing about head coaches is what happens to team chemistry over time. We will see how he does. Obviously I like the direction of the offense, hopefully it stay at this performance level or gets better. Time will tell.

 

[Smart]

So physics don't say that a 47 yarder is harder than a 27 yarder but easier than a 77 yarder? Common sense doesn't show that a 47 yarder is harder than a 27 yarder but easier than a 77 yarder?

Now, every single field goal has exactly 50/50 odds? And next year, we are supposed to be stunned when Robbie Gould makes more than half of his kicks? And if I go to the Bears and offer to be their starting kicker for the league minimum, they should sign me since I also have a 50/50 chance of making the kick?

Your stone cold reality is the funniest thing I have read all day. I keep waiting for the hilarious punchline though, and it just isn't there yet.