Belichick's Decision Makes me Glad We got McDaniels

[gkubiak74]

http://www.nflstatanalysis.net/2009/11/belichick-unwittingly-emboldened-geeks.html

I have long felt that coaches are too conservative on 4th Down. Here's an interesting article about how stat geeks are defending Belichick's decision. I totally agree. And, I think McDaniels has the mentality to make the same type of choice.


I love the way the article closes out:
"The ability to store more and more data has allowed the average statistically minded fan to perform the analyses proving what they have long believed - but never had the data to prove.

The internet has provided a method to disseminate the message.

The Belichick discussion finally gives them a platform.

So. Game on. It's Microsoft Excel (or SAS, Minitab etc...) vs. old school thinking.

The empirically minded minority is getting a seat at the table. Will it change the way decisions are made in the NFL? Doubtful. But, the debates will certainly take on a new life."

[Ravage!!!]

this place would EXPLODE if our coach made a stupid decision like that.

[Dortoh]

Yhea Belicheck sucks

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0dmEFos0sSw/R5q7d4Uo0ZI/AAAAAAAAAUc/q3AMcFSMZS4/s400/dr_evil_belichick.jpg

[Dortoh]

If they make that first down the talking heads proclaim him king of awesome for keeping the ball away from coach Pay-me-aton and company.

IMHO of course

[broncophan]

If McD and his coaching staff keep getting outcoached at halftime....like he has the last 3 games......I would imagine alot of us around here will not be "Glad We Got McDaniles".

[CoachChaz]

How many Bengals fans were pissed that Lewis stayed around so long? A LOT. Sometimes itpays to stick with a coach and let his plan develop.

[dogfish]

How many Bengals fans were pissed that Lewis stayed around so long? A LOT. Sometimes itpays to stick with a coach and let his plan develop.

consistency is a good thing-- unless eric mangini's running your organization. . . .

[CoachChaz]

consistency is a good thing-- unless eric mangini's running your organization. . . .

Couldnt agree more.

My comment was made more for those that will eventually be calling for McD's head if we miss the playoffs this year and next somehow. Rome wasnt built in a day.

[Lonestar]

Couldnt agree more.

My comment was made more for those that will eventually be calling for McD's head if we miss the playoffs this year and next somehow. Rome wasnt built in a day.


some will call for his head and they would be dumb for doing it considering, just how really bad shape this team was coming into the year..

while we might have had a good offense had jay stayed, I tend to think that would have not been the case..

had he stayed and listened to Josh and played within his system he would not have been the jay that so many loved a gunslinger.. and really IMHO unhappy.. plus we would still have the issues with our OLINE not being able to open holes for RB's nor give the QB time to make the throws in the pocket.. but then his mobility might have helped there so maybe that is a wash..3


getting back to Josh having to do an almost total rebuild it is going to take more than ONE year to be as good as they can be..

[Ravage!!!]

Surprising to see Wiz bring up Cuter and Shanahan.

But I'll say this. I won't be calling for McDaniel's head if we don't make the playoffs this year. HOWEVER... lets be straight about it. McDaniels was left with one HELL of an offense with a LOT of offensive talent. No new coach taking over a team this year has had CLOSE to the kind of talent that McDaniels was left with.

Last year we gave Shanahan crap for losing a 3 game lead to the Chargers and missing the playoffs. FIRST TIME IN HISTORY for that to happen. FIrst time in HISTORY.

Things change. If McDaniels were to not make the playoffs THIS year, it would be the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY for a team to go 6-0 and miss the playoffs (rookie coach or not). SIX and OH and miss the playoffs would be a colossal collapse. Not only would we have lost a THREE GAME lead to the Chargers (which is something the Shanahan haters used as their platform for wanting him out), not only would be the FIRST team to EVER miss the playoffs with a 6-0 start, but would be the first to have a 6-0 start and a 3 game lead and STILL miss the playoffs!

Although its not something I personally would call for his job on, that would be just as inexcusable of a collapse as anything, and there would be NO 'first year' coaching excuses. First year coaches have turned things around their first year and made the playoffs in other cities. Jax, Miami, Atlanta to name a few off the top of my head.

So although Rome wasn't built in a day.. and this team will take more to be a true 'contender'.... to miss the playoffs after 6-0, would be a RECORD setting collapse.

[claymore]

How many Bengals fans were pissed that Lewis stayed around so long? A LOT. Sometimes itpays to stick with a coach and let his plan develop.

That is allot of waiting. For 2 good years. This year included. Im not willing to wait longer than 3 years.

[claymore]

some will call for his head and they would be dumb for doing it considering, just how really bad shape this team was coming into the year..

while we might have had a good offense had jay stayed, I tend to think that would have not been the case..

had he stayed and listened to Josh and played within his system he would not have been the jay that so many loved a gunslinger.. and really IMHO unhappy.. plus we would still have the issues with our OLINE not being able to open holes for RB's nor give the QB time to make the throws in the pocket.. but then his mobility might have helped there so maybe that is a wash..3


getting back to Josh having to do an almost total rebuild it is going to take more than ONE year to be as good as they can be..
We sacrificed a good Offense for a good defense now we have neither.

[BroncoBJ]

Surprising to see Wiz bring up Cuter and Shanahan.

But I'll say this. I won't be calling for McDaniel's head if we don't make the playoffs this year. HOWEVER... lets be straight about it. McDaniels was left with one HELL of an offense with a LOT of offensive talent. No new coach taking over a team this year has had CLOSE to the kind of talent that McDaniels was left with.

Last year we gave Shanahan crap for losing a 3 game lead to the Chargers and missing the playoffs. FIRST TIME IN HISTORY for that to happen. FIrst time in HISTORY.

Things change. If McDaniels were to not make the playoffs THIS year, it would be the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY for a team to go 6-0 and miss the playoffs (rookie coach or not). SIX and OH and miss the playoffs would be a colossal collapse. Not only would we have lost a THREE GAME lead to the Chargers (which is something the Shanahan haters used as their platform for wanting him out), not only would be the FIRST team to EVER miss the playoffs with a 6-0 start, but would be the first to have a 6-0 start and a 3 game lead and STILL miss the playoffs!

Although its not something I personally would call for his job on, that would be just as inexcusable of a collapse as anything, and there would be NO 'first year' coaching excuses. First year coaches have turned things around their first year and made the playoffs in other cities. Jax, Miami, Atlanta to name a few off the top of my head.

So although Rome wasn't built in a day.. and this team will take more to be a true 'contender'.... to miss the playoffs after 6-0, would be a RECORD setting collapse.


Actually Ravage, the Vikings back in like 2003 or something went 6-0 and missed the playoffs. Remember they got beat on the last play of the game by the Vikings. And I think the Redskins missed the playoffs one year after going 6-0 or something. So it wouldn't be the 1st time. :elefant:

And if McDaniels had went for it on 4th down and we won the game, then people would be on here loving him. Personally, I'd be all for him going for it on 4th down in a situation like that. Gotta have Guts. I'd rather see Manning score on it from the 30 on me. Then sweating every single time he drops back if he drives 70 or 80 yards on me. I like coaches that have guts. Some people are too concerned by going with the book. I like the call. If he gets it, he wins the game. If he punts it or doesn't get it. Chances are that he loses the game.

[Lonestar]

We sacrificed a good Offense for a good defense now we have neither.



because I respect you so much OK your right



we did not sacrifice a good offense in scoring nor red zone.. we gave up a turn over machine..with a strong arm that was great between the 20's..


if you expected anything more than a 8-8 team then you were ready for a huge disappointment.. this team has been mediocre at best the past 3 years..

it was time to move on just sad that many have not..

[Ravage!!!]

Actually Ravage, the Vikings back in like 2003 or something went 6-0 and missed the playoffs. Remember they got beat on the last play of the game by the Vikings. And I think the Redskins missed the playoffs one year after going 6-0 or something. So it wouldn't be the 1st time. :elefant:



Fair enough. I was going off a stat they just showed this Sunday during the football game (and saw a poster repeat it here).... but was at a sports bar and couldn't hear and could only read from the screen. So if there was some small alternations to the stat to the stat, I don't know. Either way.. doesn't change much. It STILL would be a complete and total collapse with absolutely NOOOO excuse. None. No first year reasons.

as far as mcdaniels making that call.... people would explode either way. Just as they have with Belicheck. I'm telling you...even if he made that first down, people would STILL be calling that one of the dumbest decisions made.

[BroncoWave]

this place would EXPLODE if our coach made a stupid decision like that.

You really can't argue with the stats. And you're "well it didn't work so i'm right" comment you made in the other thread is not only totally wrong but just shows a basic lack of knowledge of probability. Neither option would work 100% of the time but based on every statistical analysis I have read about the situation, going for it on 4th down gave them a statistically higher chance of winning. Sorry you can't wrap your head around that but the statistical analysis is pretty thorough and hard to argue.

[Northman]

Meh, i think Belly is getting too much grief over it. If he succeeds than everyone would be praising him.

[BroncoWave]

To put it simply, the odds of the Pats making the 4th down conversion + the odds of them stopping the Colts if they missed on 4th down were higher than the odds of them punting the ball to the Colts and stopping them. The stats prove it, it's really that simple.

[Ravage!!!]

You really can't argue with the stats. And you're "well it didn't work so i'm right" comment you made in the other thread is not only totally wrong but just shows a basic lack of knowledge of probability. Neither option would work 100% of the time but based on every statistical analysis I have read about the situation, going for it on 4th down gave them a statistically higher chance of winning. Sorry you can't wrap your head around that but the statistical analysis is pretty thorough and hard to argue.

I never said "well it didn't work so I'm right." I can VERY MUCH argue with those 'stats' and percentages...absolutely.. 100% of the time argue with those. I'm sorry YOU Can't get your head around the fact that it doesn't have anything to DO with some statistical analysis :lol: But I find it VERYcute that I can't keep up with your intellect. I find it funny that you think that article proves ANYTHING. The choice has EVERYTHING to do with the yard line that was on, and the reprecussions of NOT getting that first down from the 28.

Mike Holgram is a pretty damned good coach. Pretty smart.. super Bowl winning coach that some considering to be a HoF'er. NO WAY does he go for that on the 28 yrd line (his words). Tony Dungy.. NO WAY does he go for that (his words). I know Belicheck is a smart coach, which is why THIS call is getting all the press. NO ONE can understand why a smart coach like Bill, would make such an impulsively dumb call... with SUCH playoff implications.. as this one. OTHER than his arrogance.

The average pass per completion is somewhere around 7.8 yrds. The average completions % for the good QBs is around 64%. So what you are telling me, is that the teams should go for it EVERY time there is any 4th and "less than 8" yards.. .because they have a 64% chance of completing that pass and getting a first down. 64% is pretty good odds. Why don't they do that more often??? That means they only miss on that completion 36% of the time.

How FOOLISH of any team NOT to try to pass for first down on anything less than 4th and 8.

You'll have to excuse me, BTB, if I don't take your 'analysis' article over the likes of guys like Holgram and Dungy. I guess YOU can send them that "pretty thorough and hard to argue" piece of literature and apologize to them that they can't get THEIR head wrapped around such BRILLIANT football strategy.

[Ravage!!!]

Meh, i think Belly is getting too much grief over it. If he succeeds than everyone would be praising him.

Not from the people I've been listening too. But... :lol: I sure do love to hear some of the reasons behind defending it. Some of the funnest stuff I've read.:shocked:

[topscribe]

http://www.nflstatanalysis.net/2009/11/belichick-unwittingly-emboldened-geeks.html

I have long felt that coaches are too conservative on 4th Down. Here's an interesting article about how stat geeks are defending Belichick's decision. I totally agree. And, I think McDaniels has the mentality to make the same type of choice.


I love the way the article closes out:
"The ability to store more and more data has allowed the average statistically minded fan to perform the analyses proving what they have long believed - but never had the data to prove.

The internet has provided a method to disseminate the message.

The Belichick discussion finally gives them a platform.

So. Game on. It's Microsoft Excel (or SAS, Minitab etc...) vs. old school thinking.

The empirically minded minority is getting a seat at the table. Will it change the way decisions are made in the NFL? Doubtful. But, the debates will certainly take on a new life."

It was a good decision, and one I'm sure he would make again. A good offense
against a so-so defense that hadn't stopped them all day, and waiting on the
other side to take over the ball is one of the G.O.A.T. quarterbacks.

The play failed. It probably would succeed three out of four times. It was a
good decision.

-----

[Northman]

Not from the people I've been listening too. But... :lol: I sure do love to hear some of the reasons behind defending it. Some of the funnest stuff I've read.:shocked:


Who might that be? The commentators? Fans?

Ive seen things like this go down before with other coaches. If a coach makes a ballsy call (i'll use Shanny's call to go for the 2pt conversion last year with SD) he is somehow a genius and it was the greatest call eva. But, if that same coach fails than all of a sudden its the apocalypse and he's a good for nothing coach and should be fired immediately. Sorry mate, this guy has won 3 championships and knew he was in a ballgame on the road where the other team was on a run and he was trying to put the game away and missed it by 1 yd. It was a gutsy call on his part but they didnt get it done and thats all nothing more, nothing less. The way the media is freaking out about it is just hilarious. Give me a coach with balls any day of the week.

[Dortoh]

Who might that be? The commentators? Fans?

Ive seen things like this go down before with other coaches. If a coach makes a ballsy call (i'll use Shanny's call to go for the 2pt conversion last year with SD) he is somehow a genius and it was the greatest call eva. But, if that same coach fails than all of a sudden its the apocalypse and he's a good for nothing coach and should be fired immediately. Sorry mate, this guy has won 3 championships and knew he was in a ballgame on the road where the other team was on a run and he was trying to put the game away and missed it by 1 yd. It was a gutsy call on his part but they didnt get it done and thats all nothing more, nothing less. The way the media is freaking out about it is just hilarious. Give me a coach with balls any day of the week.

I think the media really needs Farve to retire and unretire this week so they have something to yak about

[Ravage!!!]

Who might that be? The commentators? Fans?

Ive seen things like this go down before with other coaches. If a coach makes a ballsy call (i'll use Shanny's call to go for the 2pt conversion last year with SD) he is somehow a genius and it was the greatest call eva. But, if that same coach fails than all of a sudden its the apocalypse and he's a good for nothing coach and should be fired immediately. Sorry mate, this guy has won 3 championships and knew he was in a ballgame on the road where the other team was on a run and he was trying to put the game away and missed it by 1 yd. It was a gutsy call on his part but they didnt get it done and thats all nothing more, nothing less. The way the media is freaking out about it is just hilarious. Give me a coach with balls any day of the week.


Coaches and players interviewed. There has been splits with some players..but generally speaking the people I consider to be knowledgable of football strategy (or at least, ones that have the resume) generally are saying the call is just 'too' gutsy for the position of the field.

Generally saying that not all 4th down attempts are treated equal, and although its a 'gutsy' call...it just had too much on the line to take that kind of chance. The coaching 'types' all agreed that if he would have made it, the fans would have called him brilliant. But the reality is that making it made him lucky, going for it made him foolish. Even if you feel you have a 2/3 (66%) chance of making it, the 28 yrd line is the determining factor in a game so important to the playoff standings.

I don't really care. I just don't think you can use some mathmatical hypothosis (or statistical analysis) that doesn't cover almost nearly every kind of factor that occurs in an NFL game, to prove this to be a good call. I have fun arguing over it. But mainly because its one of those calls that people take such a hard stance on, either direction.

[BroncoWave]

I never said "well it didn't work so I'm right." I can VERY MUCH argue with those 'stats' and percentages...absolutely.. 100% of the time argue with those. I'm sorry YOU Can't get your head around the fact that it doesn't have anything to DO with some statistical analysis :lol: But I find it VERYcute that I can't keep up with your intellect. I find it funny that you think that article proves ANYTHING. The choice has EVERYTHING to do with the yard line that was on, and the reprecussions of NOT getting that first down from the 28.

Mike Holgram is a pretty damned good coach. Pretty smart.. super Bowl winning coach that some considering to be a HoF'er. NO WAY does he go for that on the 28 yrd line (his words). Tony Dungy.. NO WAY does he go for that (his words). I know Belicheck is a smart coach, which is why THIS call is getting all the press. NO ONE can understand why a smart coach like Bill, would make such an impulsively dumb call... with SUCH playoff implications.. as this one. OTHER than his arrogance.

The average pass per completion is somewhere around 7.8 yrds. The average completions % for the good QBs is around 64%. So what you are telling me, is that the teams should go for it EVERY time there is any 4th and "less than 8" yards.. .because they have a 64% chance of completing that pass and getting a first down. 64% is pretty good odds. Why don't they do that more often??? That means they only miss on that completion 36% of the time.

How FOOLISH of any team NOT to try to pass for first down on anything less than 4th and 8.

You'll have to excuse me, BTB, if I don't take your 'analysis' article over the likes of guys like Holgram and Dungy. I guess YOU can send them that "pretty thorough and hard to argue" piece of literature and apologize to them that they can't get THEIR head wrapped around such BRILLIANT football strategy.

Well Belichick has won more Super Bowls as a head coach than Dungy and Holmgren combined so there goes that argument.

[topscribe]

Well Belichick has won more Super Bowls as a head coach than Dungy and Holmgren combined so there goes that argument.

To tell you the truth, about the only coach I would consider over McKid at this
point may be ol' Belly Check himself . . .

-----

[BroncoWave]

Also, I'm not saying that a more conservative approach doesn't work for coaches like Dungy and Holmgren, I'm just saying that Belichick's aggressive play to win instead of playing not to lose style has helped him immensely in his career and there is no reason to turn his back on that strategy now in their biggest game of the season. And even though it didn't work there, I'd bet alot of money it would work next time they are in that position.

[Gamechanger]

my team is 9-0...thats all i care about :coffee:

[Gamechanger]

If they make that first down the talking heads proclaim him king of awesome for keeping the ball away from coach Pay-me-aton and company.

IMHO of course

yep

too bad Pay-me-aton is that damn good :coffee:

[Medford Bronco]

I still think it was a dumb low percentage move

It shows Zero confidence in his D

Also they took 2 timeouts in the series.
One on first down and one before the 4th down play because the punt team
was on the field.

IF they were going for it on 4th down they should have run it on 3rd down
forced Indy to take a timeout and then still had their own timeout after the play was over to challenge the play.

The Genius had a few fau paux on that series.

[BroncoWave]

I still think it was a dumb low percentage move

It shows Zero confidence in his D

Also they took 2 timeouts in the series.
One on first down and one before the 4th down play because the punt team
was on the field.

IF they were going for it on 4th down they should have run it on 3rd down
forced Indy to take a timeout and then still had their own timeout after the play was over to challenge the play.

The Genius had a few fau paux on that series.

I just don't buy this argument. I know some people don't like the stats but the odds of converting on 4th down + the odds of stopping them from scoring after a failed 4th down is just as good as if not greater than the odds of punting it away and stopping them. I have not seen a single statistical breakdown that says otherwise. And given NE's 4th down conversion rates, they are over 50% so I can't see how you could call that a "low percentage move".

[BroncoBJ]

Fair enough. I was going off a stat they just showed this Sunday during the football game (and saw a poster repeat it here).... but was at a sports bar and couldn't hear and could only read from the screen. So if there was some small alternations to the stat to the stat, I don't know. Either way.. doesn't change much. It STILL would be a complete and total collapse with absolutely NOOOO excuse. None. No first year reasons.

as far as mcdaniels making that call.... people would explode either way. Just as they have with Belicheck. I'm telling you...even if he made that first down, people would STILL be calling that one of the dumbest decisions made.

:lol: I know it wouldn't be acceptable. But We've already exceeded expectations that people gave us this season. But I'm with ya on that. No way should we start off 6-0 and not make the playoffs. I'm just glad that we have back to back games at home in 5 days. Win those 2 games and were 8-3 with the Chiefs and Raiders left to play for 3 more games. So it should be at least 11 wins hoping. The Chargers also lost to the Steelers and Ravens. Just because we lost to them more recently, doesn't mean that were collapsing. Just playing very good teams who needed wins and a hot Steelers team coming off a bye. Its not a collapse if we beat the Chargers and hang on to win the division. Its only a collapse if it happens. I hope we come out with the same energy and passion and desire to win that the Ravens did a few weeks ago when they played us.

And If they got the 1st down. People would say thats why Bill is the best coach ever and goes against the grain. I can almost book that. Hes done some gutsy things in the past. I like the call. But everyones different. It is what it is. Its not my team so I don't care what the Patriots are doing. :lol:

I just hope that we see them again at Invesco in January. :salute:

[CrazyHorse]

I don't believe that it was statistically the best thing to do. The general consensus was that it was a poor decision. When you use statistics you can be very selective in what you choose to use.

[Medford Bronco]

I just don't buy this argument. I know some people don't like the stats but the odds of converting on 4th down + the odds of stopping them from scoring after a failed 4th down is just as good as if not greater than the odds of punting it away and stopping them. I have not seen a single statistical breakdown that says otherwise. And given NE's 4th down conversion rates, they are over 50% so I can't see how you could call that a "low percentage move".

IT is because if you dont get it, Manning has to go 28 yards for a TD

I agree to disagree with tyou

[Ravage!!!]

I just don't buy this argument. I know some people don't like the stats but the odds of converting on 4th down + the odds of stopping them from scoring after a failed 4th down is just as good as if not greater than the odds of punting it away and stopping them. I have not seen a single statistical breakdown that says otherwise. And given NE's 4th down conversion rates, they are over 50% so I can't see how you could call that a "low percentage move".

This is really not true. You can't show me a stat that shows football. It shows numbers.

Example. Are all fourth down attempts the same? Is this fourth down try the same as others? Field position wise, game on the line wise, EMOTIONAL wise? Plus, as a coach on ESPN pointed out, this particular fourth and 2 is more like defending a 2 point conversion than defending any other fourth down attempt. What are the percentages of a two point conversion being converted? Not high. Why is it like a two point conversion? Because the TWO yards were what was on the line here. The defense wasn't playing the deep. I think the 2 point conversions are listed at 44%.

Plus the mathmatical analysis doesn't show whats on the line. THere is just no mathmatical equation that takes all that into account.


But as Med said. It was fun debating back and forth, but we aren't changing each other's mind. You are going to believe what you believe and I'm going to believe what I do. No way some mathmatical equation proves a single thing to me here. But to you, it does. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on that and never know if going 70-80 yrds would have made the difference.

[BroncoWave]

This is really not true. You can't show me a stat that shows football. It shows numbers.

Example. Are all fourth down attempts the same? Is this fourth down try the same as others? Field position wise, game on the line wise, EMOTIONAL wise? Plus, as a coach on ESPN pointed out, this particular fourth and 2 is more like defending a 2 point conversion than defending any other fourth down attempt. What are the percentages of a two point conversion being converted? Not high. Why is it like a two point conversion? Because the TWO yards were what was on the line here. The defense wasn't playing the deep. I think the 2 point conversions are listed at 44%.

Plus the mathmatical analysis doesn't show whats on the line. THere is just no mathmatical equation that takes all that into account.


But as Med said. It was fun debating back and forth, but we aren't changing each other's mind. You are going to believe what you believe and I'm going to believe what I do. No way some mathmatical equation proves a single thing to me here. But to you, it does. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on that and never know if going 70-80 yrds would have made the difference.

Come on, it's nothing like going for 2, you know better that that. When you go for 2, the field is very cramped and you can't throw the ball more than 10 yards downfield. Where the Pate were, the field was much more open and they had more room to make a play. You just can't compare that to a 2-pt conversion.

[BroncoWave]

IT is because if you dont get it, Manning has to go 28 yards for a TD

I agree to disagree with tyou

But we're not comparing 28 yards vs. 70 yards. We're comparing the chance of not letting Manning have the ball at all + the chance of stopping them from going 28 yards vs. stopping Manning from going 70 yards. In that situation with those stakes, I would say the Pats odds of converting that 4th down are pretty damn high, this just happened to be one of those unlucky few times they missed it, although the replay shows that the refs spot was pretty debatable.

But like I said, why should Belichick change the way he has been coaching for his entire career with the Pats (a style that has taken him to 4 Super Bowls and put him a fluke play away from winning them all) during their biggest game of the year on the biggest play of the game? That kind of playcalling works out for him far more often than not and that just happened to be one of the few unlucky times it didn't, but because it was against the Colts on national TV, most people seem to be bashing the decision.

[topscribe]

But we're not comparing 28 yards vs. 70 yards. We're comparing the chance of not letting Manning have the ball at all + the chance of stopping them from going 28 yards vs. stopping Manning from going 70 yards. In that situation with those stakes, I would say the Pats odds of converting that 4th down are pretty damn high, this just happened to be one of those unlucky few times they missed it, although the replay shows that the refs spot was pretty debatable.

But like I said, why should Belichick change the way he has been coaching for his entire career with the Pats (a style that has taken him to 4 Super Bowls and put him a fluke play away from winning them all) during their biggest game of the year on the biggest play of the game? That kind of playcalling works out for him far more often than not and that just happened to be one of the few unlucky times it didn't, but because it was against the Colts on national TV, most people seem to be bashing the decision.

Exactly. And that's why he's the HC, and we're not.

I guess we can feel pretty smug in that we can second-guess a legend . . .

-----

[BroncoWave]

Just a couple of links for you guys' amusement. Make of them what you will.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html


Belichick's 4th Down Decision vs the Colts

New England coach Bill Belichick is taking a lot of heat for his decision to attempt a 4th down conversion late in the game against the Colts. Indianapolis came back to win in dramatic fashion. Was the decision a good one?

With 2:00 left and the Colts with only one timeout, a successful conversion wins the game for all practical purposes. A 4th and 2 conversion would be successful 60% of the time. Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 53% of the time from that field position. The total WP for the 4th down conversion attempt would be:

(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP

A punt from the 28 typically nets 38 yards, starting the Colts at their own 34. Teams historically get the TD 30% of the time in that situation. So the punt gives the Pats about a 0.70 WP.

Statistically, the better decision would be to go for it, and by a good amount. However, these numbers are baselines for the league as a whole. You'd have to expect the Colts had a better than a 30% chance of scoring from their 34, and an accordingly higher chance to score from the Pats' 28. But any adjustment in their likelihood of scoring from either field position increases the advantage of going for it. You can play with the numbers any way you like, but it's pretty hard to come up with a realistic combination of numbers that make punting the better option. At best, you could make it a wash.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/6424/math-shows-belichick-barely-made-right-call


Math shows Belichick barely made right call
November, 16, 2009
Nov 16
5:12
PM ET
Email Share
By Tim Graham
ESPN Stats & Information, using the Win Probability Calculator from wp.AdvancedNFLStats.com, computed whether Bill Belichick made the right statistical call in deciding to go for it on fourth down Sunday night against the Indianapolis Colts.

ESPN Stats & Information aimed to break it down four ways:

1. Chance of winning the game if the Patriots converted the fourth down.
2. Chance of winning the game if the Patriots missed the fourth down.
3. Chance of winning the game if the Patriots punted the ball.
4. Chance of converting the fourth down.


The Win Probability Calculator factors the score, time remaining, field position, down and distance.

Predicted outcomes to the above scenarios came back thusly:

1. If the Patriots converted, they would have had a first down roughly on their own 30-yard line with two minutes to go. Their average win probability in this situation would be 92 percent.
2. If they missed the fourth down, the Colts would take possession on roughly the Patriots' 29-yard line with two minutes to go. The Patriots win probability in this situation would be 66 percent.
3. If they punted the ball, using Chris Hanson’s average of 44 net yards in the game, the Colts would have gotten the ball at about their own 28-yard line. The Patriots' win probability in this situation would be 79 percent.
4. The answer to this one has many variables. The NFL average when going for it on fourth-and-2 over the past two seasons was 55.7 percent. The Patriots had converted three of four attempts in that situation over the past two years prior to Sunday night. The Colts' defense allowed opponents two conversions on three fourth-and-2 attempts over the past two seasons. Even though this indicates that the Patriots were more likely to convert than the league average, ESPN Stats & Information placed their chances of converting at the league-average rate of 55.7 percent.


Next is some hardcore math that produces the following:

* The Patriots' win probability when going for it (factoring expectation of winning with the probability of a successful conversion versus the expectation of winning with the probability of a failed conversion) was 80.5 percent.
* The Patriots expected win probability when punting, as stated above was 79.0 percent.


Here is ESPN Stats & Information's final synopsis:

Using these estimates, the decision is very close. The Patriots’ expected win probability when going for it is actually greater than the expected win probability when punting, but just by 1.5 percent. If you say the Colts and Peyton Manning had a greater chance of coming back after the missed fourth down conversion than the 34 percent given to them by the NFL average ... then you’d probably also give them better than the 21 percent chance to come back if the Patriots had punted. So you’d have to decrease the win probability when punting from 79 percent. Most likely, you end up with a close decision either way.

[GEM]

I wouldn't have an issue on 4th and 2 as long as the coach puts the best players on the field for the execution.

Say we're there and he puts Jordan on the field....I'd crucify him. After watching Hillis last year and knowing that teams don't have game tape of him this year, I'd be ok with. Buck and Moreno...iffy as I'd worry they would put the ball on the ground.

[Ravage!!!]

Come on, it's nothing like going for 2, you know better that that. When you go for 2, the field is very cramped and you can't throw the ball more than 10 yards downfield. Where the Pate were, the field was much more open and they had more room to make a play. You just can't compare that to a 2-pt conversion.

That was the point though. It was like going for two, because the defense knew they weren't taking a chance downfield. This is why the math doesn't come into it. Doesn't have a single thing to do with strategy. It doesn't take into account defensive calls based on the situation and WHERE the ball is.. WHEN it is.

AT the time...calling to go for fourth on your own 28 when winning by six..... is a gutsy call.. THUS why its controversial. Is it the same as going for 2 points?? Maybe defensively it is. When calling your defensive calls and personnel it is. It most CERTAINLY is NOT like your normal 4th and 2 at any other time of the game. Thats why the math analysis doesn't really hold water to me. It doesn't take SOOOOO many things into factor.

As far as questioning a legend... ABSOLUTELY we can feel that smug. People question coaches all the time, and they don't have a single, friggin, clue. Legends make mistakes. Hence why I would take the opinion of Tony Dungy and Mike Holgrem. Guys that have actually played in those BIG games and have coached against the greatest...while coaching some of the greatest to ever play the game.

Tony Dungy... who has Manning on HIS team.... would NOT make that 4th down attempt! Holgrem, who had Brett Favre, would NOT make that attempt. Its not like we haven't seen Belicheck's ego get the best of him before. He chose to go for 4th and 13 instead of kicking a 46yrder.. in the Super Bowl. Tell me that wasn't an ego choice.

[Ravage!!!]

But... at the same time. I DO understand the call to go for it. Its not like I don't understand the choice. Its not like I don't see the logic behind the 'maybe' of going for it.

BUT.. BUT... in all seriousness. IF the logic behind his thinking was that he had SOoooo much respect for Peyton Manning that if he punted, Manning was going to score (which I find to be a bit absurd)..but.. IF that was the logic...... then why not continue your OWN line of thinking, and let Peyton score on the FIRST play after they didn't convert the first down? I mean, if you are SOOOOO sure that Manning was going to score from 70 yrds away, you had to have felt VERY sure that Peyton was going to score from 28. So if that is the logic, then why not let Peyton score on the first play, and give your own QB 2 minutes to get back into FG range?

[BroncoWave]

That was the point though. It was like going for two, because the defense knew they weren't taking a chance downfield. This is why the math doesn't come into it. Doesn't have a single thing to do with strategy. It doesn't take into account defensive calls based on the situation and WHERE the ball is.. WHEN it is.

AT the time...calling to go for fourth on your own 28 when winning by six..... is a gutsy call.. THUS why its controversial. Is it the same as going for 2 points?? Maybe defensively it is. When calling your defensive calls and personnel it is. It most CERTAINLY is NOT like your normal 4th and 2 at any other time of the game. Thats why the math analysis doesn't really hold water to me. It doesn't take SOOOOO many things into factor.

As far as questioning a legend... ABSOLUTELY we can feel that smug. People question coaches all the time, and they don't have a single, friggin, clue. Legends make mistakes. Hence why I would take the opinion of Tony Dungy and Mike Holgrem. Guys that have actually played in those BIG games and have coached against the greatest...while coaching some of the greatest to ever play the game.

Tony Dungy... who has Manning on HIS team.... would NOT make that 4th down attempt! Holgrem, who had Brett Favre, would NOT make that attempt. Its not like we haven't seen Belicheck's ego get the best of him before. He chose to go for 4th and 13 instead of kicking a 46yrder.. in the Super Bowl. Tell me that wasn't an ego choice.

But Belichick has won more Super Bowls than the 2 of them combined, so why does their opinion hold more water to you than his? That just doesn't make sense to me.

Also, those 2 coaches have different styles from Belichick. For them, it may have been a bad idea to go for it there because that's not what they've traditionally done to give themselves success. You can't judge all coaches by the same measuring stick. Belichick did what usually works for him, and Dundy and Holmgren would have done what usually works for them. They can all 3 be right.

[Ravage!!!]

But Belichick has won more Super Bowls than the 2 of them combined, so why does their opinion hold more water to you than his? That just doesn't make sense to me.

Also, those 2 coaches have different styles from Belichick. For them, it may have been a bad idea to go for it there because that's not what they've traditionally done to give themselves success. You can't judge all coaches by the same measuring stick. Belichick did what usually works for him, and Dundy and Holmgren would have done what usually works for them. They can all 3 be right.

I don't necessarily think that Belicheck winning more Super Bowls makes his opinion or judgement superior. He's made mistakes. He made a dumb call going for it on 4th and 13 in the Super Bowl. A coach that just went 18 wins in a row, and he STILL made the wrong call. In the end, that cost him the biggest game of his life. Saying that his opinion or judgement is superior simply because he's had a team thats won more SUper Bowls is like saying Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are better QBs than Marino, or that Bill Billick is a better coach than Marty Schottenheimer.

Jimmy Johnson won two Super Bowls, is that close enough to count? He had Aikman and Emmitt Smith and said he wouldn't make that call BECAUSE of where the ball was only up by 6. Does his opinion mean anything? Point bringing these guys up is simple.... its not just a matter of "lil ol' me" who doubts and disagrees with the likes of a 'great coach.' OTHER great coaches have stated they disagree with the call, as well.

EVERY hard call has the "well if it only would have worked." EVERY fourth down attempt can say that. Hell, EVERY single play called on every single down, could say "well, if the players only executed, it would have been a good call." So I, personally, don't find that argument to make much sense. I think the entire discussion is based purely on "do you make that call with the ball on the 28 yrd line when only up by 6."

But you have a good point. Every coach is different. I obviously know that Belicheck has had success in the NFL, but that doesn't mean I think all his decisions are bullet proof or the right call. I've seen him make bad choices before. Like I said in the previous post. IF he was TRULY thinking that the chances of Manning scoring from 80 yrds away is the same as scoring from 28 (since he MUST take the chance of failing to make a decision)... then why didn't he simply keep with that same line of thought and let Manning score and give his own great QB the ball with 2 minutes left to get into FG range?

If Belicheck felt confident enough that his offense can convert a 4th and 2 with the game on the line.... why wouldn't he feel confident enough to get into FG range with a full 2 minutes to get down the field? Its a contradiction. If you believe that you make the other team EARN their TD, (and not just let them score from 28 yrds out).... then why wouldn't you force them to 'earn' it from 70-80 yrds out?

Oh well. Either way, I'll never agree with that call. Doesn't matter, doesn't change a single thing. I'm glad Belicheck made that call and lost the game because of it. :D :beer:

[Medford Bronco]

But we're not comparing 28 yards vs. 70 yards. We're comparing the chance of not letting Manning have the ball at all + the chance of stopping them from going 28 yards vs. stopping Manning from going 70 yards. In that situation with those stakes, I would say the Pats odds of converting that 4th down are pretty damn high, this just happened to be one of those unlucky few times they missed it, although the replay shows that the refs spot was pretty debatable.

But like I said, why should Belichick change the way he has been coaching for his entire career with the Pats (a style that has taken him to 4 Super Bowls and put him a fluke play away from winning them all) during their biggest game of the year on the biggest play of the game? That kind of playcalling works out for him far more often than not and that just happened to be one of the few unlucky times it didn't, but because it was against the Colts on national TV, most people seem to be bashing the decision.

When Belicheck had a better defense he would have definatley punted.
Trust me I have seen enough NE games and they would not always go for it on thier own side of the 50, Especially in 2001-2004

[Nomad]

When Belicheck had a better defense he would have definatley punted.
Trust me I have seen enough NE games and they would not always go for it on thier own side of the 50, Especially in 2001-2004

Teddy Bruschi agrees with you Med!!

[Slick]

I think he made the right move any other time. The exception was this game. Peyton didn't have his A game that day. I'd have made him go 65-70 yards to beat me in this particular circumstance.

It's easy to say that after the way it worked out, but I felt like that when they took the time out to discuss it.

Ballsy call on his part though. I'm sure his offense feels worse about it than he does. I bet Tom helped talk him into it.