Patriots-Colts: Would you have gone for it?
by David Fucillo on Nov 16, 2009 9:00 AM PST
in San Francisco 49ers News
Email
PrintMike Sando wrote up a post today in which he said he wouldn't skewer Bill Belichick for rolling the dice on 4th and 2 last night. Belichick crapped out, but Sando thought:
Given the way the Patriots were functioning, Belichick reasonably could have expected Brady to convert a fourth-and-2 against that defense a high percentage of the time, perhaps three out of four. And if the Patriots managed to convert, they almost certainly would have won the game.
...
Punting with 2:08 remaining would have armed Manning with the football and one timeout remaining, plus the 2-minute warning. Going that route would have been playing not to lose. Good luck with that approach against Manning.
So, would you have gone for it in that situation? Personally, I don't think punting the ball would have been playing not to lose. I understand that the Patriots had been playing fairly well. At the same time, your defense had been doing fairly well against Manning. The counter to that is that the Colts had just previously put together a 1:49 scoring drive, and aside from an earlier interception, they'd been on a roll in the 4th quarter.
I definitely think it was ballsy of Belichick and not something you see too frequently in the NFL these days. At the same time, I don't know if it was necessarily the smartest idea. What do folks think?
77 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yes.
100 times out of 100.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Sounds like 100 losses out of 100 attempts!
"Optimist Prime"
I'll say it over and over Crabtree was not the pick we NEEDED, at least until he scores with 100yds receiving.
more like
80 or so wins from making it, and another 5-6 from stopping the colts after not making it.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Especially since the Pats are
very successful at 4th and short. They convert 76% of the time on that distance. I think the odds favor them and I can’t fault Belichick for going for it.
not just the Pats.
Most teams are about that successful. Teams as a whole don’t go for it nearly often enough on 4th down.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
wow
turns out I pretty severely underestimated how often a team scores a TD from the 30.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Against Peyton Manning and the Colts
it doesn’t matter how much time they have left or how long they have to drive, they can still score on you in a hurry. If you get the 1st down you’re just about guaranteed the win. You punt and it will only take them one or two plays to get back to where you would have been had you turned it over on downs.
Not entirely true
I would rather take my chances on stopping them from the 50 than the 28
"Optimist Prime"
I'll say it over and over Crabtree was not the pick we NEEDED, at least until he scores with 100yds receiving.
They can also be stopped
As NE has done to him many times. Only this time they would have had the extra advantage of the clock on their side and forcing INdy to take 7 -10 plays to try for the win. That’s 7-10 opportunites to make a play or Indy to make a mistake. By giving it up at the 29, you’ve made it a 2-4 play drive, thus fewer chances for you to win the game and fewer for them to make a mistake.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
No way in hell
I would never take a chance on giving Manning that chance. I would have to punt and rely on the defense Manning wasn’t having an outstanding performance. Belichik got scared!!
"Optimist Prime"
I'll say it over and over Crabtree was not the pick we NEEDED, at least until he scores with 100yds receiving.
No (site decorum) Way
Not where they were at on the field and not against Peyton Manning.
"It ain't over till it's over." - Yogi Berra
I would have punted.
But I guess I am kind of a weenie.
To me… thinking about it. I’ve heard that, mathematically, the winning probability is better if you go for it there. This is where many people might attack the math, poo-poo the numbers, talk about how the game isn’t played with a calculator and get out of your mother’s basement, nerd.
But you know what, I trust numbers. I don’t know about these specific numbers because I haven’t actually seen them. I heard about them, but I haven’t seen them. So they might be total crap. But for the sake of argument, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.
My gut reaction would have been not to go for it. To punt. Play field position. After hearing that my chances of winning would be better, mathematically, unequivocally by going for it, I think I’d still punt it.
And the best way I can explain why is by way of analogy:
You’re handing your friend a revolver and telling him to fire at you. If you go for it, it’s like you’re giving the friend a gun with one bullet in it and telling him to give it a spin and fire at your head from 10 feet away. If you punt, it’s like you’re giving the friend a gun with two bullets in it but telling him to stand 50 feet away before firing.
Mathematically, the chances that the bullet doesn’t get fired are better if you go for it. Hey, 5 times out of six you’re going to win that game!
If you punt it, you’re doubling the chances of the bullet getting fired. Your chances are still pretty good that it won’t get fired. Just not as good. However, you’re also probably increasing your chances of not getting shot in the head if the bullet does get fired. You might still get shot in the shoulder or the leg. You might get really unlucky and take a shot to the heart, but you’re at least giving yourself a real chance of not getting shot in the head.
I’d rather not get shot in the head.
Peyton Manning is the gun.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
I look at it this way
It’s like an 80% chance of a 100% chance of winning, vs a 100% chance of a 70% chance of winning.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Yeah, but with guns.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
speaking of the numbers
have you read advancednflstats’ 4th down series? interesting stuff, even though it doesn’t really apply here, because their analysis doesn’t account for leverage.
(http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-1.html)
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
bah
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-1.html
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I have not read it:
But now that you’ve shown it to me, I plan to.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
While I Wouldn't
Have gone for it, I can certainly see the logic.
Old coaching maxim: “when it works, it’s a great call. If it doesn’t work, you’re an idiot.”
Key to the game: Score More
I voted no
but i would have wanted to go for it. The sour puss thought he was playing madden not an nfl game.
what? no. just... no.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
20.20 hindsight
If I knew my intention was to go for it on 4th, I would have called a run play on 3rd and 2, behind a 2 TE package…run the clock to the 2 minute warning…give my O line a breather during the break, and run the same play again on 4th down. I don’t agree with 2 throws to the sideline…poor playcalling. Additionally, the 2 minute warning came after the TO on downs, a nice chance for Indy to collect the offense and talk their strategy. If you run twice and still don’t get your first down, the Indy offense has less time to prep for the drive.
I agree with this
Love the decision, hate the playcalling.
Also, why wouldn’t the receivers give themselves an extra yard on their patterns just in case?
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
good question...
…and that’s why short yardage passes are such crap. The whole defense is playing with your receivers in front of them, and it always comes down to where the ball was caught and what the player’s momentum was. With a run play, at least you’re moving forward, the ball is going toward the marker…what ever happened to going over the top (not Sylvester Stallone arm-wrestling)? Hell, at least send a TE in motion and get the pile moving.
He pulled a Switzer
Remember ‘95, Dallas at Philly, from around his own 30 Switzer went for it and got stuffed, only to be bailed out by the 2-min warning negating the play? Then went again and got stuffed again. His excuse was along the lines of "It was 4th and ’that’ much!" Yes, but the concept that because your team runs or throws for such little yardage all game thus should be able to on this one occassion is foolish. You’re giving the defense one play to win the series and likely game, much different from how they play based on down and distance throughout the rest of the game.
It’s simple risk vs reward. Unless you are a two win team with nothing to lose from being reckless, you do the smart thing just as you ask your players to do all game. Bringing the game down to one play, either a 4th & 2 from your own 28 or a two point conversion, is needing everything to go perfectly. Throw, route, catch, spot. The defense only need do one thing correctly. This doesn’t even get into the message it sends your defense: I don’t trust you to stop the other guy from gaining 70 yards in 2-minutes. That’s placing way too much fear about Manning into your team. Greater QBs than he have played and they too have been stopped before. He lost the game in a gambling manner that would have him and coaches upset if a player had been some short-sighted.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
If the D takes that message
then, well, they’re wrong. The average NFL play gains something like 4.4 yards. The average NFL run gains over 3 yards. The pats had to get 2 yards to win the game. Even though it is bringing everything pretty much down to one play (well, excepting the fact that the D still has a pretty good chance to get a stop even just from the 30), that one play succeeds 3 times out of 4.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Avg does not account for this one play
It’s like the poor logic I heard after the Niners lost in Minnesota, saying “they threw the ball for 5 yards all second half so why can’t they do it one more time to win the game.” It assumes it will work and running the ball (in that situation) will fail. And it often doesn’t work in this one situation because it’s not 4.4 yards in the flow of the game, it’s one play. You’re asking the defense to stop you one time to win. They had just done it on third down, so even your 75% assumption is hollow since technically NE was 0/2 trying to win the game, not just 0/1.
To then say the defense has a “pretty good chance” to stop them from the 30, then they would have a great chance to do so from the other 30. BB made a move of arrogance and it cost him, as it should.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
actually
my 75% assumption is backed up by how often NE is successful on 3rd or 4th and 2
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
You're missing the point
It’s not about how often NE succeeds in other situations vs other teams. It’s about this one play in this one situation vs Indy. Assessing strategy you must take into account opponent, time, field position, etc. This is much different from when they converted 4th & an inch in the 3rd quarter at home vs Atlanta. Had they not made that play, there’s still over a quarter to be played to say nothing of a different opponent.
Let’s say your 75% is correct. If all three makes come at or across midfield or in the first three quarters of a game, but the one miss always happens in your own territory or in the 4th quarter, wouldn’t you find that stat useless? It won’t matter if NE converts a 4th and 2 next week at home vs the Jets in the first half. It matters that they didn’t on a reckless decision in the 4th quarter at their own 28 last night. BB made a bad decision on the risk vs reward scale and it cost his team a likely win.
We may just have to agree to disagree on this one.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
depends
on a lot of things. Mostly, you would expect groupings like that to happen sometimes simply because of chance. You’d have to determine if there is actually a REASON that all the 4th quarter attempts (for instance) failed, or if you were just unlucky. Chances are you were just unlucky.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
There is a history
NE ran a quick out in the slot on a late, critical 3rd down play in the 2006 Championship game . . . it failed.
They ran the same quick out route this time to the outside WR on the previous 3rd down play . . . it failed.
On 4th down they called the same play as the 2006 championship game . . . it failed.
0-3 against the Colts late in games. That’s not a good percentage or suggests an actual 75% success rate for the particular situation.
in your huge sample size of 3.
In a much larger sample size of 3rd and 2 and 4th and 2 opportunities the Pats have had this year, they succeed about 75% of the time.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
See you only want to believe that stat
This stat says they were previously 0-2 calling that same exact play in almost the same exact down, distance and situation against the Colts. Now they are 0-3.
You can make stats say whatever you want depending on how you parse it.
Not even getting into the fact that those previous two calls were from years ago, a sample size of 2 simply isn’t enough information to weigh into a decision.
But still, that’s arguing the play call, not the decision.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
They are roughly the same teams as three years ago and of course the play call factors into the decision. Same systems, many of the same key players.
You are arguing the same logic people used to believe Chris Johnson wouldn’t have success running against the 49ers defense. Generally the 49ers ranked 2nd against the run (prior to the game) so statistically it suggested Chris Johnson would be shut down, that was their case.
Except in Danny’s own statistical analysis he showed teams had fairly good success running off the LT against the 49ers defense albeit a small sample size which he kept noting and questioning why more teams were not giving it a try. What does Chris Johnson do as a running back? Runs outside behind the tackles.
What stat about the 49ers defense told the story of the game?
You can stick with your general, overall percentage as justification. Or can dive deeper into the numbers where you might find an intellectual carrot or two based off a smaller sample which might shed some better light on the situation.
In this case you are sticking to the general number based off several years of Belichick history. (I guess that rule of past season’s history doesn’t apply as a knock against your stat). Or you can analyze executing that same play, against the same team in the same exact situation.
You can only really make stats say whatever you want depending on how much you restrict the sample.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions
To be more clear: I’m not arguing with you necessarily. Like I said above, I personally prefer the punt call. I also said that I do trust numbers, though.
However, in this case I don’t think that arguing the percentages by presenting a statistical sample of two is adequate. To my eyes, a statistical sample of two is never ever ever ever adequate.
I think in this case, for lack of a better sample, you’re better served making the case from an x’s and o’s standpoint. A reasonable argument could be made that the flat percentages are misleading in light of certain formations, matchups, etc.
I think in some of your comments, you’re really doing this. And it’s absolutely worthwhile. This 0 for 2 stuff doesn’t hold a lot of water, though.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
You also need to factor in the defenses success rate from preventing a touchdown from 30 yards to go compared to 70 yards to go. It’s not one percentage, it’s the combination of both.
right
and pretty much no matter which way you run them, going for it is the better choice.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Riskier not better
And when the risk outweighs the reward, you don’t do it. I go back to Switzer making the same decision, when he felt that having the bet O-line and RB in the game shoudl allow him to get an inch. Except it doesn’t work that way when you’re telling the opponent they need only make one play to set themselves up for an easy win. Add to that that your own players know how dangerous it is and that they have to be perfect on thids play or likely lose.
You punt and trust your defense. If this had been at or across midfield, the risk goes down and becomes more balanced with the reward. Punting does not lose you that game. Missing on 4th down almost assuredly does.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
no. Better.
As in, even if you believe Peter King when he says the colts have a 90% chance of getting the TD from the 30, you’re still more likely to win if you go for it.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I think he did the right thing
Considering how good Manning is, especially at the end of the game, I would do everything in my power to not even give him a chance to win it. You have arguably the best offense in the game, so it’s more than reasonable to think you’d be able to make it.
If you punt, you basically just add 30-40 yards that Manning needs to make up, and that’s assuming they don’t make a good return. With more than 2 minutes left in the game, that’s nothing for Manning to make up. It’s one thing if they had, say, one timeout and there was 1:10 or so on the clock, but over 2 minutes is more than enough time for a good quarterback to get his team down the field.
STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.
by UnleashTheGore on Nov 16, 2009 10:45 AM PST reply actions
def agree with the decision....
just like t p said hindsight is always 20 20 and for everyone who did not watch the game and decided to read and react to it today the Pats actually got the initial 2 yds….but Faulk bobbled the ball and fell backwards. If I had to question anything it would be that Brady did not look for moss or welker, but moss in particular(who destroyed my fantasy team btw) and who was basically uncovered the entire game. Im a die hard niners fan but I am a football fan first. I love to see calls like that but I know that Singletary, while he has my vote as a very good coach, would never go for it in that situation. Why? because he plays not to lose…..Bellichek plays to win….and has the superbowl rings to back it up.
Thought it was a really bad call
The Patriots are difficult to attack up the middle of the field with Wilfork, Mayo and Meriweather on defense. They hadn’t given up anything cheap or anything deep all game.
Like the 49ers game, they forced the Colts to throw intermediate routes to the outside targeting Garcon and Collie who continue to play inconsistent and drop balls. I would like my chances again against those two with 2 minutes left.
The biggest play on the Colts prior drive was a pass interference penalty. The DB wasn’t beat, he just made contact to early challenging for the ball.
By going for it and failing it allowed the Colts to run the ball on the final drive. Addai had a huge run to setup the TD. With 70 yards to go Addai doesn’t get one carry and NE only has to worry about the pass. Two passes to Reggie Wayne was all it took. With more field to go Peyton would of had to use his other less consistent targets.
My gut instinct was definitely to punt
But after reading some more into the decision going for it was definitely the right call. Brian Burke of NFL Stats broke it down here and showed that going for it gives you a 79% chance of winning and punting gives you only a 70% chance of winning.
There’s also this cool “Belichick Fourth-And-2 Calculator” which lets you put in the odds of a conversion on 4th down, Colts score after a failed conversion, and Colts score after a punt and then tells you based on what you think the odds were which decision was the smarter play. It’s really neat and there’s some funny verdicts too (you’ll get it if you click on the link).
If you think about it it just makes sense to go for it. You have a 60% chance of ending the game on that play (by converting) and even if you fail you still have a decent shot at stopping the Colts from scoring. If you punt you lose the 60% but have a higher chance of stopping them, but still not nearly enough to make up for giving up the 4th down conversion attempt. Remember, you need to analyze the process and not the outcome, so your opinion should be the same whether they converted or not.
So yes, i really like the call to go for it, especially because you know the media will lambast a coach any time he does something against the grain (even if it was the smart move) and fails. Gutsy move that gave his team a much better chance of winning.
My problem was with the play-calling and the wasting of the timeouts. I think the Pats used one timeout right before the 4th down play, and another earlier in the 4th. That was a mistake, as was passing twice on 3rd and 2. You have a good offensive line and the Colts D ranks 26th in power situations, run the (site decorum) ball. 2 runs or even 2 QB sneaks almost surely gets the first down.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 11:20 AM PST reply actions
Sometimes common sense trumps stats
Especially small sample sizes like 4th down success. After all, if it were that easy then why don’t teams do better on third down? Just treat it like 4th down. I have a feeling that if more teams went for it on 4th, the percentage of success would go down.
It certainly seems most players, who are usually all about being aggressive, think it was a bad move. They’re the ones that have to execute the poor decision and live with the result. Rodney Harrison called it the worse coaching decision he ever saw BB make. Warren Sapp perhaps said it best: "NFL Ain’t a Madden Video Game Punt the D@mn Ball."
Silver covers this in his morning rush:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;ylt=AhT.uFvrmZXGUPnQ_cqbgQ5nYcB?slug=ms-morningrush111609&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I tend to agree with the principle of diminishing returns that you’re talking about, and it’s one good direction to look in when arguing against going for it.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
Good point in your first paragraph
That’s certainly something that could play a factor. Regardless, I think going for it was at the very least about as likely to lead to a win as punting so I don’t think Belichick deserves all the hammering he is getting.
As for guys like Harrison and Sapp, to be honest I don’t really care about their opinion too much. They were obviously great players but that doesn’t mean they are good strategists.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
BUT THEY WERE PLAYERS
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
That's good.
Got a laugh out of me. And I understand your earlier point. I only mention the former player commentary in this instance since I’m sure the NE defenders were shocked at what was being done. That they then had to go out there after that, they couldn’t have been as focused or confident as they would’ve had the Colts taken over on their own 30.
I know coaches often make decisions to get their teams attention or show confidence. Like going for it on 4th & goal from the 1. You’re saying “I’m putting it on your shoulders to get 7 instead of 3” but also “if we don’t make it I trust our D to get it back in good field position.” I’d love to know what the NE players thought when Brady went back out there and when the attempt failed.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Does anyone out there really feel more comfortable
giving Peyton the ball at (generously) his own 20 with just over 2 minutes, the 2 minute warning and a time out left, or taking a decent chance at converting the first down to end the game.
I really don’t agree with the flack Bill’s getting, I think it was the right move. Honestly, I would have picked the play Kurt Warner used to run where you get to the line, fake a hard snap a couple of times and if it doesn’t work, which it almost certainly won’t, then have the QB stand up and start walking towards the sidelines before you direct snap the ball to the RB.
I don't remember that play
I hope that wasn’t against us! I gotta see that video. I was always a big fan of Marino’s fake spike, it’s even better now seeing Jets fans still mourn over it.
I've seen a few teams do that play
It’s pretty cool and I wish more teams would do creative stuff like that. As long as you don’t do it very often those type plays have very high success rates.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
I Concur
It was a good call.
Giving the ball back to Manning up 1 score and 2 minutes is a disaster waiting to happen no matter where he starts. The 2 minutes on the clock is a non-factor. The Pats tried to control their own destiny. Manning had no problem moving the ball from the 30 (and no time trouble as well) so there is no reason to believe they wouldn’t have scored starting from their own 40, with a lax defense fearing a big play.
At least the Pats took a crack at winning it.
nice point brendan...
Your are exactly right too many people are analyzing the outcome and not the process. NE has arguably the best QBs to enter the league in the past 30 years. Why not go for it especially when the only other guy that you could argue as the best QB in the leafue is standing on the other sideline, with more than 2 min to go, 2 timeouts, and a defense that lost two starters on the defensive lineto injury, and only has 6 returning starters from the previous year. It makes me so angry that people are so bent out of shape about this. How many people think that Maurice Jones Drew’s play was stupid?…….half of you probably dont know what im talking about. Why? Because it worked. The Jags are down and Jones Drew kneels down on the 1 to run the time down and put his team in position for a chip shot. Had they muffed the snap or missed the kick everyone would have been on his case too. Had Belichick’s gamble worked you all would be reserving a spot in canton for him. I hate arguing with fickle fans….this game is for men……PERIOD
Maybe go for it....
if it was a 4th and 1 or less, and by the time the Colts would have received the punt and ran around for a few seconds, the 2 minute warning would have happened so they would have been stuck with 2 mins, 1 timeout and 80 or so yards to go….Belichick and the Pats deserve this loss for being idiots and giant a-holes throughout the years
Belichick and the Pats deserve this loss for being idiots and giant a-holes throughout the years
Now that I can get behind. I was applauding the decision, but rooting for Indy to stop them at the same time.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
How, exactly, have they been a-holes? By “running up the score”? I’ve always operated on the theory that if you let up on a team, you’re really showing them pity and disrespect, which is much worse than blowing them out, IMO. If I was a coach, I would much rather a team play their hardest than show me pity.
Is it the apparent arrogance that bothers you? I think it’s more confidence than anything, and you have to have confidence to play well. And really, do they act more self-centered than most of the rest of the league?
STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.
by UnleashTheGore on Nov 16, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions
Good posts on it from NYT today
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/defending-belichicks-fourth-down-decision/
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/zeus-computer-program-supports-belichicks-fourth-down-bid/?apage=2#comments
I’ll admit, I was pretty ignorant about this whole 4th down thing until I started reading Gregg Easterbrook’s Tuesday Morning QB column, but now I can say that the conventional wisdom on 4th downs is just so far off, and its too bad/typical that Belichick would take so much heat for what is at worst was a debateable call, and really was almost certainly the right call to make.
Yeah...
TMQB showed me the light as well. It would completely change the game and the way teams called their plays if they thought that they’d have four downs instead of just three to work with.
STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.
by UnleashTheGore on Nov 16, 2009 3:39 PM PST up reply actions
Seriously call to question this number in the article and analysis
A conversion on 4th-and-2 would be successful 60 percent of the time.
SpurredOn made this argument but I will make it again, it’s context cannot be true.
According this article the 3rd-and-2 conversion rate for the NFL has been 52% over the last 4 years. First-down success is the key to third-down conversions
How can odds on 4th down be better than the odds on 3rd down given the same distance? I’m guessing that additional 8% increase in success is attributed to two factors:
1. Occasionally coaches will go for it on 4th down because there offense has been successful against the defense. They aren’t going for it when their offense is getting pushed around by the defense.
2. In late game situations offenses go for it 4th down because they are behind and have no choice. Doesn’t always mean the defense will challenge the 4th down conversion. Getting the ball on downs would be great but maybe the offense still has 60 yards to go and clock is heavily in the defenses favor so they continue to back off.
Anyways, I cannot see how any statistician worth their salt would trumpet that 4th down conversion rate without holding some reservations by looking at the 3rd down conversion rate from the same distance.
And that’s a good point.
Regardless of whether or not it was a good move, it has to take a really bad team or a very good team (and in both cases a coach with balls) for the guy to consider it seriously. Coaches for contenders that aren’t in the elite would get excoriated by the media if such a move were to fail.
You wish you were named Frederick Deshaun...
Bit of the opposite
If you’re a lesser team, why not be reckless? If you told losing teams that they had one play to beat one of the current giants (Colts, Patriots, Saints, Vikings) when the game kicked off, they would take it. One 4th down conversion or one 2-point conversion, you go for it. 50/50 shot is the best they could hope for as the longer the game goes the more likely the superior talent wins out. If you too are a top team, you expect to win and should have a good enough punt team and defense to stop a QB from going 70 yards in less than 2-minutes. Your chances are better than 50/50 since the game comes down to more than one play for you to make or them to screw up. Should Indy score in one play, then you get the ball back needing only a FG to win.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
actually not really
because you have to adjust the odds of success up across the board.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I would have punted
But that was a dumb play call. On 4th down give it to your best player. Do a slant to Randy Moss or something. Screen to Welker. Don’t throw to your RB. I would have rather have a fake punt then a stupid play like that to the RB
Go 49ers
WOW, too many people here play Madden & not real football.
No you never go for it on fourth down in that situation.
wow.
the ignorance in your comment (and all the other THIS ISNT MADDEN) is simply stunning.
I don’t think you’re stupid to not go for it necessarily, and I understand the reasoning behind wanting to punt it, and I’d appreciate it if my views, which have nothing whatsoever to do with Madden, weren’t dismissed because they don’t agree with you.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Knowing that Belichick was thinking it in his mind as a viable option, if I were in his shoes, I probably would have gone for it.
I never would have thought to not punt though if put in the same situation without the knowledge that he would have done it, though.
You wish you were named Frederick Deshaun...
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
- Video: Bill Belichick implores his defense to make the Giants throw to Mario Manningham
- Training Day: Learning the 40 with an Olympian
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
