4th and 2: Why Belichick was wrong

by MaPatsFan on Nov 17, 2009 7:55 PM EST in Opinion Comment 64 comments

I rarely question Bill Belichick. The man is obviously light years ahead of me when it comes to football. Heck, he's light years ahead of most people who KNOW football. If there was a classroom full of football brains and Bill was in it, he'd be the guy the teacher got sick of calling on. You know, the only guy with his hand up.

Even though he's much smarter than me about football, I do not subscribe to the "In Belichick We Trust" theory. I think it's ok to question and discuss his decisions, be they draft choices, cuts, or whether or not to go for it on 4th and 2.

Before I get into it, a brief tangent into some silliness that's going on out there. After torturing myself with some Boston Sports Radio, I've come to believe many sports fans are no more than thugs on a street corner. Since when is a football decision considered arrogant? If it was Tony Dungy making the same decision (last year, that is) would it be considered arrogant? The thought that Belichick was thumbing his nose at the Colts' defence is utter lunacy. It's a cheap shot by the small minded. I also think guys like Indy DE Robert Mathis and LB Clint Session should let other teammates do the talking. Both Session and Mathis sounded like common street thugs by playing the disrespect card. Like the "arrogance" comments, it simply doesn't make any sense. Maybe it's a way to get fired up, but it's a football decision. Again, I don't think Belichick set out to say, "You can't stop me, therefore I'm going to go for it." He was trying to make a play. Session and Mathis should let DE Dwight Freeney do the talking; he at least sounds like an intelligent guy:

Said Dwight Freeney, the Colts' other DE: "As a defense, we take a lot of pride. When you go for it on fourth down in that situation, we have to make a play, and that's what we did. We stepped up."

Fair enough. Well said.

Back to the decision. This has been beaten to death. The horse is dead and buried, but I'm going to dig it up and beat it some more. Going for it on 4th and 2 was the wrong decision. And it's not because hindsight is 20/20. I remember thinking to myself, "Hmm... he's going for it. Is that wise?"

The golden rule when playing quarterbacks like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning is this: Keep the ball out of their hands!! Why? Because they WILL make plays, that's why. Manning proved that by using his hurry up offense to its fullest potential on 2 fourth quarter sprints for a total of 14 points. Belichick had a very tough decision to make: try to convert a 4th and 2 with a 70% chance of success or punt and put the ball in Mannings hands, against a gassed Patriots defence, at roughly the Indy 30. That gives Manning 2 minutes to go 70 yards, which he'd already done twice.

While percentages are good, there's a couple of issues for me:

The Indy defense was fired up. That was the game right there. They were playing for Truth, Justice, and the Indy way...at home...in front of THEIR crowd. They were on pure adrenalin at that point. I contend the success rate of that play, in that situation, is a far cry from 70%.
The decision shouldn't have been whether or not to go for it. It SHOULD have been this: which choice has the least risk of failure, failure being an Indy TD?

We've just discussed the percentage for making that: about 70%. But I contend differently; I'd suggest it was more like 30% in that situation. Assuming I am correct, that's a 70% chance you'll give Manning the ball on the Patriot 29 with 2 minutes to go. Giving the ball back to Manning after a punt and 70 yards to go is not an ideal situation either. He just proved he can march down the field in under 2 minutes. However, as gassed as the Patriots D was, they would also be playing for Truth, Justice, and the Patriot way. I believe they could've risen to the challenge and stopped the Indy offense. To sum it up, I believe punting had the least risk of an Indy TD.

Bill Belichick is a lot smarter about football than I am. And he only had seconds to make this decision. I am thankful for a coach who has a pair because this coach has done so much for us Patriot fans. But you need to ask yourself, if you agree with his decision, if this was another "In Bill We Trust" moment. If you truly believe he made the right decision, you're comfortable with the risk, and it's not a blind faith following of Hoodie, that's good. I can respect that opinion. However, I'm of the opinion punting would've given us the best chance of winning.

These games are so close. So close...

0 recs | Comment 64 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

He made the right choice.

Peyton would have scored either way

by CardsDefense on Nov 17, 2009 8:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dan Wetzel from Yahoo! Sports wrote an article about this

It’s here if you want to check it out. Here’s a synopsis:

Stabile’s call was problematic because he couldn’t have seen where Faulk caught the pass. Faulk was turned away from Stabile as he brought the ball in. …He had no view of the ball, Faulk’s hands or Faulk’s chest.

There was no way Stabile saw the play. He ruled anyway. He must have assumed that Faulk was still juggling the ball when he planted both feet. (Personally, I think he had possession). By making a decision he couldn’t accurately make, he spotted the ball just short of the first down.
…
Still, it ought to count for something that all of the probability formulas go in Belichick’s favor. The majority of people issuing blistering attacks can cite the assumed probability that punting was the best option. That can’t be deemed more accurate than actual probability even if you don’t believe fully in the math.

There are few things worse in sports than when conventional wisdom of how something should be done (because that’s how it’s always been done) sends a chilling effect for innovation and ingenuity.

There are few black-and-white decisions in the course of a football game. One may be better than the other, but it’s never 100 percent to zero percent. Belichick didn’t make a good choice or a bad choice, he made his own choice.

Having a coach think for himself based on great insight (statistical or otherwise) should never be called a bad move.

I like that. It’s interesting to think that maybe it wasn’t right or wrong—it was just a decision. While I would go ahead and say it was still the right move, Wetzel gives some cogent analysis.

by LegendaryTadpole on Nov 17, 2009 8:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

agreed

I like that assessment.

Its frustrating that while it is definitely arguable what the exact percentages should be and thus just what exactly was the best choice, so many people refuse to even accept the statistical arguement because " its just a bunch of numbers" or “its boring” or “I don’t understand it therefore I refuse to accept it”.

The main point of the statistical analysis is that it shows that the ‘conventional wisdom’ was not at all a cut and dry obvious choice here. That there is some legitimacy to choosing to go for it. And maybe even compelling support for going for it.

Sure, if you believe without foundation that the chance of success of going for it was ‘only 30%’ as the OP believes (in hindsight) and that the chance of the Patriots exhausted D had a better than snowflakes-chance-in-hell of stopping the Colts then the numbers skew enough where it would be obvious.

But the real historical percentages don’t support the view that they only had a 30% chance of making the conversion. Every way you can look at it, league averages, patriot’s team averages, patriots v colts averages – all show a greater chance of success by going for it.

The very fact that they missed it by about 7 inches (or arguably only because of a bad spot) implies that the chance of success was indeed pretty darn high. Certainly way better than ‘30%’.

by mmmmm on Nov 18, 2009 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Would not the converse of the Golden Rule be:

Having The Ball In Brady’s Hands Is Where The Patriots Want To keep It?

If so, once you have it there, why would you want to trade that position for the one that guarantees that the ball is NOT in Brady’s hands, but IS in Manning’s hands, for the final couple of plays to determine a game?

Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.

by Stirrups on Nov 17, 2009 8:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Belichick played to win instead of playing to not lose. It's aggresive, but punting the ball would have been a loss.

He put the ball in Brady’s hands to try to keep the ball out of Manning’s hands.

Here are the choices and outcomes:

Punt with these outcomes: (4 / 6 winning scenarios)
A1) Punt return team runs it back for a TD. You get multiple plays for a TD, you win.
A2) Punt return team runs it back for a TD. You get multiple plays for a TD, you lose.
B1) Defense gets a stop, you win (unlikely)
B2a) Manning burns up the whole clock getting and almost certain TD (he’d just done it twice), we score on kickoff return (you win).
B2b1) Manning burns up the whole clock getting and almost certain TD (he’d just done it twice), we get one play for a TD, you win.
B2b2) Manning burns up the whole clock getting and almost certain TD (he’d just done it twice), we get one play for a TD, we lose.

Go for it with these outcomes: (4 / 5 winning scenarios)
A) Get it, burn the clock and then maybe punt, win the game.
B1) Don’t get it. Your defense gets the stop or a turnover. You win.
B2a) Don’t get it. They score with time on the clock from the short field. Kickoff gets returned for a touchdown, you win
B2b1) Don’t get it. They score with time on the clock from the short field. You get multiple plays for a TD, you win.
B2b2) Don’t get it. They score with time on the clock from the short field. You get multiple plays for a TD, you lose.

Of course you have to assign a probability to each to figure the actual percentage.
The defense was gassed, their offense was hot. Manning touching the ball was a bad plan.

My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Nov 17, 2009 9:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

for the go for it column, you forgot

don’t get. they get the ball back, burn the clock down, and get the TD. you lose.

by patriotguy on Nov 17, 2009 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i have to agree with you

and i will add that your defense got their chance to play for Truth, Justice, and the Patriot way, the game didnt end on the failed 4th down attempt , the colts defense stopped you twice on the redzone (forced fumble and Int) . Your defense could had played fired up and stop Peyton from your 30 yard and still win the game, but they didnt they ware gassed they were not able to stop peyton from their 30 or from the colts 10 to be honest.

Belichick talk to his players and coordinators he knows, this is why it was the right call to go for it and seal the win right there, by the way Brady had a wide open welker in that play but i guess hes not allow to change or adjust plays like Peyton is.

by thebossuzzi on Nov 17, 2009 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He had alot of pressure, so he threw to the first open guy he saw. Welker's short.

My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Nov 17, 2009 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It looked like Welker was open, and Moss would have been if he cut to the outside. I think Brady might have locked into that route before the play even started. Look at the replay—he immediately looks to the right side when the ball is snapped. I wouldn’t be surprised if he got a little bit of tunnel vision.

by LegendaryTadpole on Nov 18, 2009 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

but the pocket was small and collapsing, too. Freeney and Mathis did a good job there.

My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Nov 18, 2009 9:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, Brady said he didn't see him

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Nov 18, 2009 6:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the 4th down miss
will only be a learning experience for belichek. after all, if he got it not only would we have won, but he would most likely keep going for those situations in the future.
better to miss the 4th down deep in our territory in the regular season, then in the post season. Maybe now he knows that he can’t keep taking those risks.

by patriotguy on Nov 17, 2009 9:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

gawd i hope he doesn't learn that 'lesson'

that would be stupid.

I only hope he learned that they needed Faulk to be 2 ft deeper in his route or that they should have gone to Moss deep.

by mmmmm on Nov 18, 2009 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i just don't want him to continue making those kind of decisions

because at one point it will blow up right in his face. I hope he learns that he can’t be reckless all the time, and should be more careful in his decision making.

by patriotguy on Nov 18, 2009 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

define "reckless"

Belichick thinks he’s giving his team the best chance to win the game. He doesn’t see that call as being reckless at all.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Nov 18, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I hope he's reckless all the way to a Super Bowl win.

My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Nov 18, 2009 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what i meant was....

is to continue to do something with the game on the line. where there were other options that appear safer, and will give the opposition a harder opportunity to score against us.

I have no problem that he went for it on 4th down. i think that it gave them, although more risky, more of a chance of to win. but if he made it, and we won, i wouldn’t be surprised if, in the same situation, does the same thing in the postseason or superbowl. and if he does, and we fail, well, it’s because that it worked 95% of the time(it doesn’t have to be 95%, it is just an example), and it just so happened to fail at the most important time of the season. By him loosing, especially against the colts, i hope that these situations in the postseason, belichek knows that we can’t always depend on the 4th down(especially in our own territory) to help win us the game.

by patriotguy on Nov 18, 2009 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i hope this makes sense.

by patriotguy on Nov 18, 2009 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

question

why could the zebra’s just give the first down if they were unsure?…i mean Indy had timeouts and challenge and the Pats didn’t. Indy could have challenged the spot ( and if they won, i would be satisfied w. the L)

by mathew.40 on Nov 17, 2009 10:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That is awful

justfication for how officials should make a call

EVH+DLR=BFFr........ God I Hope So!!

by dmstorm22 on Nov 18, 2009 1:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

However they called it, the play would have stood,since no angle gave any clear shot that the spot was wrong. So they have to call it as best they can, not based on who can challenge.

by BryantD on Nov 19, 2009 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My only problem with going for it was the play call. A three yard toss to the running back? Really? Why not a quick slant to Welker? Or send Moss on a post? Or even go to the tight end for a five yarder? The three yard route to Faulk left absolutely no margin for error and they didn’t execute it perfectly.

by RSNexile on Nov 17, 2009 10:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

w. the game on the line…i thought it would go to welker and he was open.

by mathew.40 on Nov 17, 2009 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

And if he goes to Welker, the Pats win.

by RSNexile on Nov 18, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

or moss deep

or a Brady keeper

or why not have had Brady do a keeper on 3rd down – and then again on 4th if necessary?

Lots of problems with the clock management and the actual play call and execution.

But the decision to go for it was still correct.

by mmmmm on Nov 18, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah he looked open to me.

by patriotguy on Nov 18, 2009 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

THIS IS ALL I CAN SAY

by Acemmett on Nov 17, 2009 10:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

and then you die.

My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Nov 18, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No.

and then you marry one. Then you die.

by furrycolt on Nov 18, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OH yah one more thing HERE come the Dolphins

by Acemmett on Nov 17, 2009 10:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

ah those classy dolphins fans

"Dolphins... the CLOWNS of the sea!"
-Lenford "Lenny" Leonard

by Fuzzy_Dunlop on Nov 17, 2009 11:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Acemmett in no way represents the opinions and thought processes of the majority of Phins fans.

Phin-bassador/ Head Weatherman/ Injury Specialist of the Phinsider.

Bender: Who wants dolphin? Leela: Dolphin? But dolphins are intelligent. Bender: Not this one. He blew all his money on instant lottery tickets.

Long you live and high you fly. But only if you ride the tide. And balanced on the biggest wave, you race towards an early grave.

by Farorefox on Nov 17, 2009 11:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

THATs COLD

by Acemmett on Nov 17, 2009 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Phin-bassador/ Head Weatherman/ Injury Specialist of the Phinsider.

Bender: Who wants dolphin? Leela: Dolphin? But dolphins are intelligent. Bender: Not this one. He blew all his money on instant lottery tickets.

Long you live and high you fly. But only if you ride the tide. And balanced on the biggest wave, you race towards an early grave.

by Farorefox on Nov 17, 2009 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wish to take this opportunity to point out...

I am in no way responsible for the above completely off-topic segue into strange faces, dolphins, cetacean sushi and portaloos-attacking-convertibles. Not my fault (this time).

That is all.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Nov 18, 2009 4:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm not so sure about that

maybe you have that special sort of "completely off-topic segue into strange faces, dolphins, etc.. magnetism??? It just sort of follows you around like a comet trail.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Nov 18, 2009 7:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dear Comedic.Sans

There were some “easter egg” nods to our “southern hemisphere guy”. I’m hurt you didn’t notice. ;-)

Blogger at SBNation's Patriots blog, Pats Pulpit

by MaPatsFan on Nov 18, 2009 8:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I saw

I just chose to ignore it, because then I get to say it has nothing to do with me.

It also means I’m allowed to laugh at the South Park excerpts of samurai killing the Miami Dolphins without feeling guilty.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Nov 18, 2009 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm completely out of this one ... for once.

My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Nov 18, 2009 9:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't agree with MPF

Now we can see that Belichick’s decision wasn’t the best one, but we don’t know how the match could’ve finished with a punt.

I agree that a punt seemed like the best option, but give Manning the ball with 2 minutes remaining wasn’t a good decision either. 70 or 30 yds to go, the Colts COULD make the plays and score anyway. At least, Belichick tried to keep the possession, and it’s admirable to me. It didn’t work, but it was a bold move and I respect that.

by kleitonsc on Nov 18, 2009 8:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

matthew.40 brought up a point I hadn't considered

Tully Banta-Cain and his backup Ninkovich were both out. With them went the pass rush. With the pass rush gone, Manning was carving up the defense. He’d already done the two minute drill twice, and there is no reason to believe they could stop him on the third try. The offense controlled the pace, the dome was noisy, we had no pass rush, so Peyton could strike at will.

With some semblence of a pass rush, Bill made the right call.

My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Nov 18, 2009 9:53 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Tully was injured after Indy's first score in the first quarter

Ninkovich was injured at the end of the second.

Thomas switched to DE as they moved from a 3-4 to a 4-3. After that, Manning scored almost at will.

My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Nov 18, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I know... and that's one of the beefs I have with Bruschi's comments

The defense wasn’t "trust"worthy at that time so to speak. It was decimated and he was thinking emotionally, not practically.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Nov 18, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

someone should ask him, hey u mean like ur defense that gave up a 18 point lead and lost the AFC title game?

by mathew.40 on Nov 18, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ninkovich is impressive

He seems to be playing pretty well, even perhaps outplaying Adalius Thomas. Add in the fact he’s a backup long-snapper (just in case) and he seems to be one of those guys Hoodie loves building franchises with.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Nov 18, 2009 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"perhaps outplaying Adalius Thomas"?

I think he has been.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Nov 18, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

AD got a sack and a couple of QB hits in the last week...

and Ninkovich is only working himself into the rotation, so I wasn’t sure whether to outright declare him winner. But yeah, he’s getting there, and AD surely isn’t earning what he’s being paid.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Nov 18, 2009 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you were right to be cautious as Ninkovich is still a newbie

but AD shows glimpses of greatness, followed by invisibility, that leads to my frustration with him at times.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Nov 18, 2009 9:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

don't forget

they only had one timeout. all we have to do is prevent them from going out of bounds, and winning seems a lot closer.

by patriotguy on Nov 18, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My Thoughts

Without a doubt, he made the right call. I don’t watch football for conservative play calling. I watch it because of moments like Sunday night. Though it did not work out in the end, that move was spectacular and gutsy. The type of stuff you just can’t sit through. An army of sports pundits yapping about how stupid the play was can’t change the fact our team has something they don’t, the balls to go for it on fourth and 2.

by poiriert on Nov 18, 2009 10:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I jsut wish they had run it on 3rd and 2....

Sure Maroney fumbled… but he still averages 4 yards a carry… I HATED the 3rd and 2 play call. Thats where the Pats went wrong IMHO. You have 2 yards to pick up and two downs to do it in, just call two running plays not two passing plays…

by bbismyhero on Nov 18, 2009 11:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

agreed

If they had just run a coulpe of Brady sneaks on 3rd and again on 4th if necessary …

Brady is almost always money for a sneak – and especially if they slant it on Vollmer’s side so SeaBass helps to push the gap – I don’t see how they couldn’t get 2 yds in two plays.

I would have been fine with Maroney running it also. Poor guy – hasn’t fumbled in like …. ever? And folks are ripping him as if he’s the reincarnation of Dave Krieg as a running back.

by mmmmm on Nov 18, 2009 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know why

they didn’t go max protect on the 4th down either, once they got there. You’d think they could’ve kept Faulk in the backfield to give Welker time to get free. Hell, put Maroney back there too. Keep Brady upright for a few seconds, nobody can cover Welker for very long. Going empty backfield gave the Colts the ability to pressure Brady enough where his throw had to come out quicker than he could check on Welker/Moss to see if they were open.

by sc4rs on Nov 18, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well I am still the President (and sole member it seems) of the Laurence Maroney fan club

I want to see him bounce back versus the Jets. Nick Caserio still seems confident in him.

by bbismyhero on Nov 18, 2009 12:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

nah... not sole member

I can call out his fumble, but still support the guy and want him to remain on the team. Funny thing is he’s a sure-handed guy, that’s not a criticism usually leveled against him.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Nov 18, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm only a fan

if they use him like a Kevin Faulk…he does have the moves after catching the ball…tho he does do his dance even when he catches the ball

by mathew.40 on Nov 18, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he doesn't dance that much this year.

he went for the whole more often then dancing. people also call it dancing when an OL is blocking the direction in which maroney needs to go to, and maroney tries to change direction. I count dancing when he gets the ball, he starts to go left then right, until he makes a decision. A few times last sunday when he got the ball, he immediately is met with a defender, and has to try and to break the tackle to get to the line of scrimmage while other defenders crowd him.

Like I said, he dances still, but not as much as the last couple years.

by patriotguy on Nov 18, 2009 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sweetness! A Maroney fan!

Don’t worry, you’re not the only one!

by patriotguy on Nov 18, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is nonsense...

Where are you getting your 30% number from? As far as I can tell you just pulled out of your butt. Sure Indy’s D was fired up, but that’s a play that Brady and Faulk have executed under tough circumstances over and over again. Fact is they executed it in this situation, but got a bad spot.

Of course no one is going to make the right call 100% of the time, not Belichick, not you, certainly not me. But if I were to question anything it would be why the Pats didn’t have a time out left to challenge the spot outside the 2:00 mark. It seems there was some poor time out management. I also think the Pats went into “run out the clock” mode on offense too early in the game. So there is fault to be found in retrospect, but these kind of decisions need to be made on the field very quickly and without the benefit of hindsight.

Belichick is as good a play caller as there has ever been in the NFL, the times he deviates from the so-called “conventional NFL wisdom” there is usually a strong statistical case to be made for his heresy. Certainly that is the case with this call as well.

"If you know how to cheat, start now." - Earl Weaver

by rebop on Nov 18, 2009 1:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nonsense. Hmm...

Where are you getting your 30% number from? As far as I can tell you just pulled out of your butt.

Exactly. And I said as much above:

I’d suggest it was more like 30% in that situation.

Note the word suggest, aka: opinion. So, what was your point?

there is usually a strong statistical case to be made for his heresy. Certainly that is the case with this call as well.

Everyone keeps throwing this out there. As I said above, I contend in the situation he was in, it was far less than 70%. Why? Averages are funny because they, well, average things. they have a tendency to smooth out the peaks and valleys. Show me the percentage in an identical situation (or, at the very least, similar). That is, 2 minutes left against an opponent of Indy’s caliber with the game on the line.

Belichick was wrong. That’s my opinion. You think he was right. That’s ok, too.

Blogger at SBNation's Patriots blog, Pats Pulpit

by MaPatsFan on Nov 18, 2009 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Averages average things?

I’m shocked, truly. I thought you made houses out of them.

As to the 70%-versus-30% debate, that 70% figure is over the whole league. So that includes defences like the Browns, the Rams, the Lions, etc. The Colts aren’t 9-0 because they let in conversions like those awful, awful teams; they’re 9-0 because they know how to make big plays on 3rd and 4th down conversions. So it’s probably closer to 30% than 70% (personally, I’d go an even 50-50 on a 4th-and-2 against the Colts).

My qualm with the playcalling isn’t the 4th-and-2. I have two main issues. The first is the lack of time-outs, meaning no ability to challenge. However, at least one of those late timeouts was on Brady, so I’ll ignore that for the moment. The real problem I have was the 3rd-and-2 play. Firstly, a dive or QB sneak might have gained a yard, maybe even a conversion for first down (ie – won the game). Secondly, it would tick the clock over to the 2 minute mark, eating up time (the whole point of the exercise, remember?). Thirdly, it would let Brady save a timeout and use the 2 minute mark instead, meaning just that extra bit of flexibility. And finally, if they only gained a few inches or a yard, a conversion from 4th-and-1 is just that much easier than a 4th-and-2. It’s far harder for a referee to say Kevin Faulk was short if he only needed to get a yard rather than two. The football only has to travel so far to get a yard – two times its length or so? That’s a desperate lunge away.

If Hoodie always intended to convert the fourth, he should’ve gone hard with a 3rd down dive or sneak play to set up the fourth-down dive or sneak play. The incompletion on 3rd makes me wonder whether he hadn’t initially intended to go all-out for the conversion until it actually came time for it.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Nov 18, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Stats can lie:

This conversion was harder than stats show. The stats are based on past results. Most 4th down plays are by teams behind or not at the end of the game. In those cases the defense is worried about more than the first down. In this case anything past the first down would be a Colts loss, so they could have everyone up close and risk a blitz. If your ahead you cant take risk of huge play if blitz is picked up or tackle missed. The chance of colts scoring is greater than average, Bill was right to fear Manning and trust Brady. Maybe he should have let Colts score on the next play. I bet Pats would have been able to get a FG with that much time on the clock. Doubt the challenge would have helped there was not indisputable evidence the spot was wrong. “Put one foot in Boiling water the other in Ice at -20 on average it is a comfortable 96Degrees.”

by BryantD on Nov 18, 2009 10:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs