http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/defending-belichicks-fourth-down-decision/

Quote :

" With 2:08 left and the Colts with only one timeout, a successful 4th-and-2 conversion wins the game for all practical purposes. A conversion on 4th-and-2 would be successful 60 percent 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 percent of the time from that field position. The total win probability for the 4th-down conversion attempt would therefore be: (0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP (WP stands for win probability) A punt from the 28 typically nets 38 yards, starting the Colts at their 34. Teams historically get the TD 30 percent 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. "

11/16/2009 1:10:28 PM

Quote :

"In the No Fun League, coaching conservatism is dutifully supported and approved of in most quarters."

Why go for it and try to seal the deal when you can put Peyton back 40 more yards ? It's not like he has a history of game winning drives or anything

11/16/2009 1:13:45 PM

He had a recent history of throwing multiple interceptions in that exact game though

Punting is obviously not as much of a no-brainer if you're say, the Raiders, and you're punting to say, the Cleveland Browns. But punting was still the right call.

11/16/2009 1:14:55 PM

With the best players, you ignore in-game history and go by career history

Shit, Kobe is 2-13 this game...lets pass to Farmar for the game winning shot !

11/16/2009 1:16:13 PM

So why do you draw up a play for Kevin Faulk

11/16/2009 1:17:27 PM

Here's the bottom line from that "statistical analysis":

You don't get the 4th down, the probability of the Colt's scoring is probably 90% (but let's be honest, you give the ball to Peyton Manning at the 29 yard line and it's 100%). You punt, it's around 30%.

Or even more layman's terms:

You go for it: you get it, you win. You don't get it, you lose.

You punt: 70% chance you win, 30% chance you lose.

I don't give a shit what their probability is for converting. This wasn't 4th and inches where all you need is a guaranteed QB sneak. This is 4th and a long two...where you just missed 3rd and 2 and the Colts are going to throw a kitchen sink in for the blitz.

11/16/2009 1:17:36 PM

^^ Faulk for 2.5 yards is a higher percentage than Welker or Moss for 6+

11/16/2009 1:19:09 PM

Quote :

"With the best players, you ignore in-game history and go by career history Shit, Kobe is 2-13 this game...lets pass to Farmar for the game winning shot !"

Basketball is completely different from football in this aspect. There are too many variable. You've got the offensive line and the RB having to pick up blitzes, the WR's who actually have to catch the ball, and 11 defenders that could make a great play to fuck shit up.

It certainly makes a difference if you've got "money" players...but it's not even close to basketball.

11/16/2009 1:19:17 PM

^^why not Welker for 2.5 yards

11/16/2009 1:19:44 PM

^^ There's more variables, yes, but the quarterback in football has more influence over his team's performance than any position in any other team sport (save for pitchers in baseball)

If they had a great WR or RB and just an average QB, than 70 yards would be a lot more daunting

But the quarterback makes the team

Look at the top teams in the league...Colts, Pats, Saints, Vikings, Chargers, Bengals, Steelers

Would you not trust Peyton, Brady, Brees, Favre, Rivers, Palmer or Roethlisberger to go 70 yards in 2 minutes with all three time outs ?

Its a quarterback driven league, and the best ones will beat you more often than not...Belichick knows this, and tried to take the game out of Peyton's hands




[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 1:30 PM. Reason : x]

11/16/2009 1:26:50 PM

Quote :

"Would you not trust Peyton, Brady, Brees, Favre, Rivers, Palmer or Roethlisberger to go 70 yards in 2 minutes with all three time outs ?"

The Colts were down to one timeout

11/16/2009 1:35:21 PM

Noted, but 2 minutes with receivers like Clark and Wayne who know to get out of bounds is still an eternity

11/16/2009 1:38:11 PM

11/16/2009 1:39:58 PM

Quote :

"Its a quarterback driven league, and the best ones will beat you more often than not...Belichick knows this, and tried to take the game out of Peyton's hands"

Not going specifically at your post with this comment...but I'd like to know how many 4th quarter game winning drives that these QBs have failed to convert. All you hear is how many they've converted, but never how many they've come up short on. Even with the top QBs, I wouldn't be surprised if it was 50% or less.

Even though Belichick was trying to take the game out of Peyton's hands with the play call, if he fails, he's gift wrapping that game, hand-delivering it, and personally un-wrapping it and handing it to Peyton while giving him a blow job as Peyton enjoys the gift.

There is only one logical thing you can say when defending this call...and that is that the game is over if they convert. And even then, is is GREATLY outweighed by everything else going against making that call. Any thing else you can come up with in defense of that call is crap.

11/16/2009 1:49:58 PM

Just like Jordan and Kobe probably miss more than half of thier game winning shot attempts, and just like Pujols and Arod don't come thru in 2/3 of their game winning at bats, etc...

The point is that the threat is there. Everyone knows that Peyon has led game winning drives over and over again. He is at his best under pressure. The threat alone is enough to sway an opposing coach's thinking process. Just Bonds would get walked even if he was 0-4, because the risk is there. Even if Peyton only delivered on 40 percent of 70+ yard drives when he needed a touchdown, it would seem like 80 percent to the opposing coach.

Every coach should have confidence that they can get two yards when they need it. Every single coach. Its easier than a 2 point conversion because you don't have the back of the endzone to restrict the defender's movement. Belichick had his pet play, just like all coaches do. The difference was that he was the only one confident enough to call it in those circumstances. Given his and Brady's track record, I can't say I blame him.

11/16/2009 1:56:44 PM

Quote :

"Just like Jordan and Kobe probably miss more than half of thier game winning shot attempts, and just like Pujols and Arod don't come thru in 2/3 of their game winning at bats, etc... The point is that the threat is there."

Setting yourself up again.

If you want to use the basketball analogy...then this is how it compares:

If Belichick punts, he's making Kobe/Jordan/Lebron take a contested three-pointer to win the game from 28-feet out. Sure, they've done it before, but its a fucking tough shot.

Yet he doesn't punt (obviously if they convert, then Manning/Jordan/Kobe don't even get a game-winning attempt), and he gives Kobe/Jordan/Lebron a wide open lay-up...or maybe it would be akin to intentionally fouling them and giving them two free throws while they are down one-point.

11/16/2009 2:00:32 PM

Quote :

"Its easier than a 2 point conversion because you don't have the back of the endzone to restrict the defender's movement."

It's actually pretty similar. NOBODY would go for a bomb on 4th and 2. Maybe a 10 or 15 yard route (similar to being near the endzone)...but you don't have to cover the whole field on 4th and short. You do on 2nd or 3rd and short...because that's when coaches take chances deep...but 4th and short...you only have to cover 5 yards...10 at the most.

11/16/2009 2:02:28 PM

Quote :

"NOBODY would go for a bomb on 4th and 2"

It happens from time to time, and usually works because no one expects it. You almost always are getting single coverage on anything 15 yards or more.

USC converted a long pass to Jarrett on 4th and short vs ND several years back (the "Bush Push" game),
Ohio State threw a 40 yard TD on 4th and 1 vs Penn State during thier National Title year to win the game, and the Bengals threw a 30 yard pass to Ohco Cinco on 4th and 1 vs the Panthers a few years back as well

If Brady looked deep for Moss last night, it may have worked...obviously its lower percentage then the checkdown to Faulk, but don't discount it entirely

11/16/2009 2:24:37 PM

and I'll agree to stop with the basketball analogies, since they don't translate well

Because in football, if you get convert with your offense, their offense never sees the field, so you eliminate them from the outcome entirely

You can't completely eliminate Kobe or Jordon unless you hurt them or foul them out

11/16/2009 2:27:37 PM

You remember where the ball is on any of those 4th and shorts where they went "deep"?? 4th and 2 from your own 28, up 6, 2:08 to go...no chance of going deep. Of course I used an absolute, and I was an exaggerating a bit...but your reply is "well you can't say NEVER." Bottom line is that there wasn't a player on the Colts defense that was worried about any ball past 10 yards...especially when they were blitzing. You blitz to force a quick throw.

You're grasping at straws for your argument here.

11/16/2009 2:27:57 PM

Or comp MJ a room at the Bellagio, or Kobe some young white girls

11/16/2009 2:29:27 PM

Jbrick, I'm defending the unpopular opinion here, of course you're going to have more ammunition for your argument than I am for mine

What I'm trying to say is that three things went wrong on that play for New England, and if any of the three don't occur, they probably convert and the game is over.

1.) Didn't account for the Blitz - Dungy rarely blitzed. He liked to rely on Freeney and Mathis off the edge and keep his base Cover 2 intact, almost without exception. Obviously, Belichick knew Dungy wasn't coaching anymore, but after playing against him for so many years, that particular style was engrained into his memory. The new blitz-happy scheme the Colts run disrupted that play because Belichick and Brady were so used to having that extra half second in similar circumstances.

2.) The Timout Snafu- New England had two timeouts with 2:30 or so left and the clock stopped. They blew both of them on dead ball situations in the next 30 seconds of game time. These were mental errors that bad coaches make on a regular basis, but mistakes that Belichick almost never makes. One for the wrong personnel, and the other to discuss whether to go for it or not on 4th. After blowing the first timeout, he was almost obligated to spend the second, since it was all coming down to that play anyway. If they keep both timeouts, they can stop the clock twice on the Colts' ensuing drive, ensuring they will have some time to work with after the Wayne TD.

3. ) Faulk's Bobble - If Kevin Faulk catches the ball cleanly, its a first down. He was nearly a yard past the marker, and forward progress would have given New England the first and essentially, the game. Instead, he bobbles it and the defender begins to drive him backwards. Since he doesn't have possession when the first contact is made, forward progress is nullified. By the time he secures the ball, he is back near the marker and arguably on the other side of it, but the chance to challenge is nullified by mistake number two above.



It was a ballsy move, and it will be seen by almost all as the wrong move...I'm just trying to show that their was some logic to going for it and it wasn't just a cocky display of arrogance by Belichick and Brady.

11/16/2009 2:42:33 PM

Quote :

"1.) Didn't account for the Blitz - Dungy rarely blitzed. He liked to rely on Freeney and Mathis off the edge and keep his base Cover 2 intact, almost without exception. Obviously, Belichick knew Dungy wasn't coaching anymore, but after playing against him for so many years, that particular style was engrained into his memory. The new blitz-happy scheme the Colts run disrupted that play because Belichick and Brady were so used to having that extra half second in similar circumstances."

This is dumber than any of the shit you've posted so far. Caldwell has been blitzing all year and he had been blitzing all game. I mean shit, he blitzed the exact same play before that. To think that Bill Belichick, one of the greatest minds in the game had Tony Dungy's "particular style ingrained into his memory" is one of the more retarded things I've ever seen posted in Sports Talk...and very disappointing coming from you.

I almost decided to not read the rest of your post after that first gem, but this is a slow day at work, so what the hell.

Quote :

"2.) The Timout Snafu- New England had two timeouts with 2:30 or so left and the clock stopped. They blew both of them on dead ball situations in the next 30 seconds of game time. These were mental errors that bad coaches make on a regular basis, but mistakes that Belichick almost never makes. One for the wrong personnel, and the other to discuss whether to go for it or not on 4th. After blowing the first timeout, he was almost obligated to spend the second, since it was all coming down to that play anyway. If they keep both timeouts, they can stop the clock twice on the Colts' ensuing drive, ensuring they will have some time to work with after the Wayne TD. "

You are on a roll today. With that play call, Bill is thinking this: "We convert, we win, game over. We don't convert, Indy probably scores, but there is a small chance my defense might hold up, and we might win."

.00001% chance Bill is thinking this: "If we don't convert, those two timeouts would have been useful, because I'm sure Indy can score really quick, and we can use our timeouts, and get Brady the ball back with less than a minute, with no timeouts, and we'll have a good shot at winning the game."

With 2 minutes left and facing a call like that, the last thing on a coach's mind is getting the ball back in case the other team scores.

Quote :

"3. ) Faulk's Bobble - If Kevin Faulk catches the ball cleanly, its a first down. He was nearly a yard past the marker, and forward progress would have given New England the first and essentially, the game. Instead, he bobbles it and the defender begins to drive him backwards. Since he doesn't have possession when the first contact is made, forward progress is nullified. By the time he secures the ball, he is back near the marker and arguably on the other side of it, but the chance to challenge is nullified by mistake number two above."

Ifs, buts, candy, nuts, whatthefuckever. If Brady had overthrown/underthrown/taken the sack...if Faulk didn't catch the ball at all...if the defender was even on him tighter and batted it away...if defender intercepts. This point shouldn't even be made.

Quote :

"Jbrick, I'm defending the unpopular opinion here, of course you're going to have more ammunition for your argument than I am for mine"

Yeah...I understand that. But you chose to do that...and at the same time, you are defending it with stupid arguments. I'll say it again...there is truly only one defense for Belichick's play call: "There is only one logical thing you can say when defending this call...and that is that the game is over if they convert."

If you're going to argue for the play call...just leave it at that. I'll respect that. It's still a dumb call, but that's why Belichick made the call, and that's all that should be used to support. Not percentages, not "what ifs"....just that.

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2009 2:57:47 PM

Quote :

"You go for it: you get it, you win. You don't get it, you lose. You punt: 70% chance you win, 30% chance you lose."

Well look at it this way, they choose to do the all or none. Put the ball in the hands of the leagues 1/2nd best qb with those weapons(and for those saying why pass to Kevin Faulk, guy is and has been a solid weapon for a while he isn't a scrub) and you go for it. Win it or lose it on that play with the ball in your hands. Basically this is no different then anytime a college football coach has chosen to go for 2 at the end of a game to win it instead of kicking the extra point and going into OT.

In the 4th quarter I believe Indy had 3 possessions up to that point, 2 of the 3 were 75 yard drives in 2 minutes. So actually 66% of the time so far that quarter Indy went 70 or so yards in 2 minutes(the situation they would have had if the punt).

Obviously this isn't Madden football in your basement, you punt the stupid ball but it is fun to argue the other side of it.

11/16/2009 3:01:10 PM

No further questions, your honor

Case closed, another win for Brickhouse and Associates

Dinner at Peninsula, on me

11/16/2009 3:03:03 PM

Quote :

"Dinner at Peninsula, on me"

I'll start making up shit if this is what a win gets.

11/16/2009 3:12:20 PM

i still think belicheck made the move that gave his team the best opportunity to win the game.

11/16/2009 3:12:46 PM

....but at the same time gave his time the best opportunity to lose the game as well.

11/16/2009 3:15:05 PM

Thats the definition of a gamble, jbrick

You can't win if you don't take chances

Its just an argument in philosophy whether he made the right one; there's no right or wrong answer here

11/16/2009 3:18:16 PM

^^i disagree. i think it gave them the best chance to win and the least chance to lose for the reasons i outlined on the previous page.

he definitely opened himself up to criticism by his call...and i think his ego definitely played a role in deciding to go for it. but i think percentage-wise, it was the right thing to do.

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2009 3:19:01 PM

Quote :

"You can't win if you don't take chances"

Actually, he had a greater than 50% chance to win if he punted (although I hate quantifying shit like this).

Punting wouldn't have even been "playing it conservative"...it would have been "the most logical thing to do and what any coach at any competent level of football would have done."

Quote :

"Its just an argument in philosophy whether he made the right one; there's no right or wrong answer here"

Might want to re-read this last page again.

Quote :

"i disagree. i think it gave them the best chance to win and the least chance to lose for the reasons i outlined on the previous page."

You missed a few things in your calculations. I understand what you're trying to say...but it still doesn't make sense. For people arguing percentage, one columnist actually doesn't make a decent argument:

Quote :

"His explanation is this: A team picks up 4th and 2 about 60 percent of the time -- and we all know that a fourth down conversion in this case means certain victory. On the flip side: A team would score a game-winning touchdown from the 30 about 53 percent of the time. This leads to this formula -- the first part is the 60 percent multiplied by 1 (1 signifying the certain victory if the play is converted). The second part is 40 percent multiplied by the chance of winning the game if the 4th down play fails: (.60 *1) + (.40*(1-.53)) = 78.8% chance of winning. There you go. Burke then estimates the chance of winning if Belichick punts -- that is the chance of a team going 66 yards for a touchdown in the final two minutes. He says, historically, teams get that about 30 percent of the time. So a punt gives the Patriots a 70 percent chance of winning. And there you go -- 78.8 percent chance of winning vs. a 70 percent chance if you punt. It really is clear cut. I don't know if Belichick plays with such percentages in his mind, but instinctively he knew his team's best chance to win was to go for it. "

It's Posnacki's article on cnnsi.com

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/11/16/belichick/index.html

11/16/2009 3:37:48 PM

Quote :

"You can't win if you don't take chances"

Maybe he should've taken a chance on his defense's ability to stop a 2 minute, 70 yard touchdown drive from an offense with one timeout

11/16/2009 3:56:26 PM

their defense had already failed to do that twice in that same quarter

11/16/2009 3:57:09 PM

I know, and they were facing one of the top offenses in NFL history, but they had also picked off Manning twice in the game, and again, they would've most likely had to go 65-70 yards...a field goal would do them no good

Clearly Belichek had more confidence in his offense than his special teams and defense, for better or for worse. The end result: for worse

11/16/2009 4:00:58 PM

^^^^yeah, he did the same thing i did...but i like my percentages better.

11/16/2009 4:29:41 PM

I told you it was debatable jbrick83

And all you managed to do was show your ass by trolling me with these comments after I simply made the point that it wasn't the dumbest call in the history:

Quote :

"Just like you are the exact opposite of an intelligent person."

Quote :

"You are a fucking idiot."

Any civil person would apologize, but I suspect you aren't civil from your hateful comments above.

11/16/2009 4:29:59 PM

Quote :

"What I'm trying to say is that three things went wrong on that play for New England, and if any of the three don't occur, they probably convert and the game is over. 1.) Didn't account for the Blitz - Dungy rarely blitzed. He liked to rely on Freeney and Mathis off the edge and keep his base Cover 2 intact, almost without exception. Obviously, Belichick knew Dungy wasn't coaching anymore, but after playing against him for so many years, that particular style was engrained into his memory. The new blitz-happy scheme the Colts run disrupted that play because Belichick and Brady were so used to having that extra half second in similar circumstances. 2.) The Timout Snafu- New England had two timeouts with 2:30 or so left and the clock stopped. They blew both of them on dead ball situations in the next 30 seconds of game time. These were mental errors that bad coaches make on a regular basis, but mistakes that Belichick almost never makes. One for the wrong personnel, and the other to discuss whether to go for it or not on 4th. After blowing the first timeout, he was almost obligated to spend the second, since it was all coming down to that play anyway. If they keep both timeouts, they can stop the clock twice on the Colts' ensuing drive, ensuring they will have some time to work with after the Wayne TD. 3. ) Faulk's Bobble - If Kevin Faulk catches the ball cleanly, its a first down. He was nearly a yard past the marker, and forward progress would have given New England the first and essentially, the game. Instead, he bobbles it and the defender begins to drive him backwards. Since he doesn't have possession when the first contact is made, forward progress is nullified. By the time he secures the ball, he is back near the marker and arguably on the other side of it, but the chance to challenge is nullified by mistake number two above."

The potential for shit like this to happen is why you punt.

11/16/2009 4:37:37 PM

Not to mention you are saying that Peyton can get the 30 yards 100% of the time (or a layup as you put it).

But an additional 40 yards that Peyton would need to go would bring him down to 30% in converting?

You are just making shit up. I'm not sure where I could find this information about Manning leading winning drives of 70+ yards but I'd be willing to bet my grocery money that it is A LOT more than 30%.

11/16/2009 4:38:09 PM

Figure it out for yourself:

http://belichick-decision.heroku.com/

11/16/2009 4:48:50 PM

Quote :

"And all you managed to do was show your ass by trolling me with these comments after I simply made the point that it wasn't the dumbest call in the history"

You actually said, "it could be argued that it was the right call to make." Which is laughable.

Quote :

"Any civil person would apologize, but I suspect you aren't civil from your hateful comments above."

Sorry I hurt your feelings for that dumb comment you made. But you are the biggest troll in this section, so I'm going to stop feeding you.

11/16/2009 5:10:09 PM

two big 4th quarter comebacks against the Pats, including this year with very inexperienced receivers outside of Wayne and Clark, and a gimped up secondary with two rookie starting CBs and in the AFC champ. game a few years bac, and have now won 5 out of the last 6 against the Pats.

11/16/2009 5:13:35 PM

jbrick83

Can you please tell me where you got the 30% number from about the Colts winning if the Pats elected to punt. Did you just ... make that number up?

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 5:15 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2009 5:15:26 PM

^Made it up of course. Pretty similar to the guesses other analysts are making.

And I said 85-90% on Peyton with the ball on the 29 yard line...I feel like that's pretty close.

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 5:21 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2009 5:20:53 PM

we'll go with your more conservative number of 85% to go 30 yards.

Stats 101 (I think) correct me if my math is off

.85 * .85 = .72

So 72% to go 60 yards.. that additional 10 yards to make it an even 70 yards is going to drop Manning's chance to win the game to 30%? It just doesn't make sense.

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM. Reason : []

11/16/2009 5:27:03 PM

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=4671

11/16/2009 6:08:07 PM

interesting read

all the things about the strength of Brady, Welker and Moss as great offensive threats seems a little less important though since Brady didn't target and throw to either Welker or Moss

11/16/2009 6:43:58 PM

lmao that was so awesome. not only do i hate belichick and the patriots, but i had matt stover on my fantasy team and that last extra point won the game for me by 1.

11/16/2009 7:06:13 PM

HOW CAN I REACH THEEZE KIDZ?

11/16/2009 9:06:50 PM

Fuck the Patriots!

11/16/2009 11:22:29 PM

^

11/17/2009 12:40:30 AM