Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

I'm tired of the Belicheck apologists


Grits and Shins
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

the coaching fraternity is pretty tight even when it involves Billy-boy

 

I dunno- I have heard plenty of analysts rip him pretty good- including his ex-supermen Bruschsi and Harrison

 

T Dilfer never wastes an opportunity to show you how smart he is, either

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters, here's the linkNote that, since 2001, the Colts are among the leaders in red zone efficiency but that also factors in how often they at least get 3 pts. If you divide the number of TDs into the number of trips there, you get 59%. Mind you, that's from inside the 20, not the 30. I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt that it's no worse from there.

 

As for the rest of your point. I think that's speculative at best. Regardless of the situation, Indy is going going to do what they think is the best thing to keep NE from gaining 2 yards. Saying they wanted it more given the situation is silly. Wouldn't the fact that NE's offense knew that they were two yards away from salting away the victory count for just as much? Specifically, are you implying that Ds typically don't bring the house on 4th and 2? Even in the middle of a game, when it's not do or die, you often see a guy bust a huge gain if he manages to get through the line. Why? Because teams typically bring the house on 4th and short.

 

Throughout this entire debate, which I have conducted on, now three separate threads, I've maintained total objectivity and relied exclusively on measurable facts, even giving the other side of the argument the benefit of the doubt many times. You guys keep throwing things out like "Indy knew they had it won if they stopped them", which you simply can't say without also giving up the fact that NE knew the same. And again, it's far more true in NE's case than Indy's. I

 

Your numbers are flawed. This link is red zone trips, not DRIVES started at the 29. HUGH difference. Your numbers count when the Colts start at their own 20, drive down the field to a 1st down on the other 25, then get to the 19 and fail on 3rd down and kick a field goal. That is registered as a failed trip in your stats, but would be a good scoring drive otherwise.

 

I'm talking about drives that START at the 29 going in. How many times will they score a TD in that situation. I'm sure it's much higher that 60%.

Edited by Bring Back Pat!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your numbers are flawed. This link is red zone trips, not DRIVES started at the 29. HUGH difference. Your numbers count when the Colts start at their own 20, drive down the field to a 1st down on the other 25, then get to the 19 and fail on 3rd down and kick a field goal. That is registered as a failed trip in your stats, but would be a good scoring drive otherwise.

 

I'm talking about drives that START at the 29 going in. How many times will they score a TD in that situation. I'm sure it's much higher that 60%.

Actually, they're not. Your logic is. Regardless of what happened to get a team to the 30 yard line. Once it's 1st down there, that's all that matters. It's 1st down on the 30. End of story. How effective is that team from that point on. That drive could have started on their own 20, from midfield, or right there. All that matters is that it's 1st and 10 on the 30. What are the chances from that point on to get in.

 

I am not arguing that it isn't harder to put together a scoring drive from one's own 30. However, once you've made it to the other team's 30, there's no reason to expect that your odds are any worse, from that point forward as if you just started there to begin with. Thus, for the sake of this argument, the only thing that matters is how effective they are from the 30 in as opposed to how effective they are from their own 30. And I have done more than my fair share of providing relevant stats to support my claims. You, and keggerz for that matter, are oddly lacking anything resembling a credibly backed up argument despite the fact that your claims are more bold than mine. You guys insist it was a horrible and indefensible call and I am simply saying that it's actually sound. Not the greatest call in history, which would be the other sides version of your claims, just simply not as bad as everyone thinks.

 

So quit saying bad math until you actually make a freaking valid point of your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, they're not. Your logic is. Regardless of what happened to get a team to the 30 yard line. Once it's 1st down there, that's all that matters. It's 1st down on the 30. End of story. How effective is that team from that point on. That drive could have started on their own 20, from midfield, or right there. All that matters is that it's 1st and 10 on the 30. What are the chances from that point on to get in.

 

I am not arguing that it isn't harder to put together a scoring drive from one's own 30. However, once you've made it to the other team's 30, there's no reason to expect that your odds are any worse, from that point forward as if you just started there to begin with. Thus, for the sake of this argument, the only thing that matters is how effective they are from the 30 in as opposed to how effective they are from their own 30. And I have done more than my fair share of providing relevant stats to support my claims. You, and keggerz for that matter, are oddly lacking anything resembling a credibly backed up argument despite the fact that your claims are more bold than mine. You guys insist it was a horrible and indefensible call and I am simply saying that it's actually sound. Not the greatest call in history, which would be the other sides version of your claims, just simply not as bad as everyone thinks.

 

So quit saying bad math until you actually make a freaking valid point of your own.

I think my exact word was that it was STUPID...and I think you and your numbers are completely missing many variables that are basically impossible to measure....momentum and home field being two of the major ones...and you should know that I am a numbers guy but I also know that there are certain instances where there are other variables that aren't quantitative but are a large part of the equation...and fwiw if this game was in NE then I would probably think it wasn't the best call in the world since manning would have been outside in enemy territory...I am sorry but I think that "stuff'" like that matters...and again for a numbers guy like me that isn't easy to say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my exact word was that it was STUPID...and I think you and your numbers are completely missing many variables that are basically impossible to measure....momentum and home field being two of the major ones...and you should know that I am a numbers guy but I also know that there are certain instances where there are other variables that aren't quantitative but are a large part of the equation...and fwiw if this game was in NE then I would probably think it wasn't the best call in the world since manning would have been outside in enemy territory...I am sorry but I think that "stuff'" like that matters...and again for a numbers guy like me that isn't easy to say

I think I've dumbed my numbers down sufficiently to account for home field. Again, given NE's overall success rate on 4th and 2, they'd have to be 100% at home as well as significantly more likely to go for at home to make the numbers work out in your favor. Even still, it would be barely in your favor were that the case. Again, this is assuming that Manning would do no worse than he had so far for that game while also ignoring the fact that he'd just owned that D for the last 10 minutes of the game. And if the fact that he's owned them means he's money from the 30, then that means he's money from his own. If NE can sack up with him on his own 30, they can sack up with him on theirs. It's not like they gave it up on their own 5. If the 40 yards you guys are claiming is all that, why isn't the 30 yards he still had to go? You have to admit that those 30 are the hardest on the field to gain.

 

As for momentum, a 3 and out is pretty disheartening to a team that had just had the other march 70+ yards on them twice in a row. I can't imagine how much better the D would feel if they punted.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

stopping them on a 60+ yard drive was possible.

 

But stopping them on a 30 yard drive was not possible? Gimme a break. An extra 30-40 yards of field position was not going to make bit a difference, and Belichek knew it. His team was hanging on for dear life, having blown most of a 17-point lead, and getting dominated in the 4th quarter.

 

There is a saying that, in games such as this: "the team with the ball last wins". Belichek was doing the only thing he possibly could to make sure it was his team that had the ball last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like resurrecting the "Does Belichick deserve A**hole of the Year Award"! What an arrogant a**hole. Fact is he doesnt believe in his defense and any Patriot who disagrees with his decisions is only doing so to stay out of this egotists' dog house. His press conference was hilarious! Ever notice he sounds like a little kid who gets reemed by his parents? He never makes eye contact and mubbles his answers. I got so much satisfaction watching him squirm on the sidelines when he realized he couldnt challenge the play because he WASTED his last 2 timeouts!

 

Found something special on YouTube for you Belichick lovers:

 

 

Edited by CityOfChampions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like resurrecting the "Does Belichick deserve A**hole of the Year Award"! What an arrogant a**hole. Fact is he doesnt believe in his defense and any Patriot who disagrees with his decisions is only doing so to stay out of this egotists' dog house. His press conference was hilarious! Ever notice he sounds like a little kid who gets reemed by his parents? He never makes eye contact and mubbles his answers. I got so much satisfaction watching him squirm on the sidelines when he realized he couldnt challenge the play because he WASTED his last 2 timeouts!

 

Found something special on YouTube for you Belichick lovers:

 

 

For the record, I despise the Patriots and Bellcheck. Yet despite this I can understand the very simple logic in doing what he did. That and the very fact that Manning and the Colts punched it in with such ease very much proves the point that his best chance of winning that game was to keep it out of their hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, they're not. Your logic is. Regardless of what happened to get a team to the 30 yard line. Once it's 1st down there, that's all that matters. It's 1st down on the 30. End of story. How effective is that team from that point on. That drive could have started on their own 20, from midfield, or right there. All that matters is that it's 1st and 10 on the 30. What are the chances from that point on to get in.

 

I am not arguing that it isn't harder to put together a scoring drive from one's own 30. However, once you've made it to the other team's 30, there's no reason to expect that your odds are any worse, from that point forward as if you just started there to begin with. Thus, for the sake of this argument, the only thing that matters is how effective they are from the 30 in as opposed to how effective they are from their own 30. And I have done more than my fair share of providing relevant stats to support my claims. You, and keggerz for that matter, are oddly lacking anything resembling a credibly backed up argument despite the fact that your claims are more bold than mine. You guys insist it was a horrible and indefensible call and I am simply saying that it's actually sound. Not the greatest call in history, which would be the other sides version of your claims, just simply not as bad as everyone thinks.

 

So quit saying bad math until you actually make a freaking valid point of your own.

 

 

That's exactly my point. The longer you have to go, the harder it is to get there. If I need numbers to back this up, there's no point in continuing this discussion. The chances of the Colts scoring from 65 yards away is less than from 30 yards away. Period.

 

And if it's so sound, how come no other coach in the history of the NFL has ever gone for it in this situation? Some people have come up with 'close' examples, but there's either more time on the clock, or not a TD score difference, or shorter yardage to go for a 1st down. But I cannot think of or find evidence of, another coach having ever attempted this. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly my point. The longer you have to go, the harder it is to get there. If I need numbers to back this up, there's no point in continuing this discussion. The chances of the Colts scoring from 65 yards away is less than from 30 yards away. Period.

 

And if it's so sound, how come no other coach in the history of the NFL has ever gone for it in this situation? Some people have come up with 'close' examples, but there's either more time on the clock, or not a TD score difference, or shorter yardage to go for a 1st down. But I cannot think of or find evidence of, another coach having ever attempted this. :wacko:

Dude, I'm not arguing that it's just as easy to score when you start from your own 30 as it is if you start from the other team's 30. I'm arguing that it's not so much harder that it's worth forfeiting the opportunity to either end the game with the ball in your hands or, at very least, make them drive from their own 30 with no timeouts and barely any time on the clock.

 

Each and every time I go through the numbers one has to consider I make this point.

 

So, again, I ask you. Please, just once. Make a freaking point.

 

Either that or go with Keggerz' "I just know I'm right because there are no numbers that can be used to support either side". Because if you truly want to discuss how the numbers play out, you're in above your head.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But stopping them on a 30 yard drive was not possible? Gimme a break. An extra 30-40 yards of field position was not going to make bit a difference, and Belichek knew it. His team was hanging on for dear life, having blown most of a 17-point lead, and getting dominated in the 4th quarter.

 

There is a saying that, in games such as this: "the team with the ball last wins". Belichek was doing the only thing he possibly could to make sure it was his team that had the ball last.

 

This is a very good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stats

 

The graphs here show that the NFL average for offenses that get a 1st down 65 yards away result in a TD roughly 20% of the time.

 

That's all I need to know. That, and the Patriots stopped the Colts 7 times during this game, plus two interceptions. The gamble is not worth it.

Um, the "average" NFL offense includes Cleveland, St. Louis, Buffalo... Last I checked, the Colts are not an "average NFL offense". In that game alone, the Colts scored from that far out 31% of the time. In the 4th quarter? Let's just say it was a tad higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But stopping them on a 30 yard drive was not possible? Gimme a break. An extra 30-40 yards of field position was not going to make bit a difference, and Belichek knew it. His team was hanging on for dear life, having blown most of a 17-point lead, and getting dominated in the 4th quarter.

 

There is a saying that, in games such as this: "the team with the ball last wins". Belichek was doing the only thing he possibly could to make sure it was his team that had the ball last.

 

 

If this was true, he should have let them score once the Colts got to the 14 with 1:20 to go. Instead, they stopped Addai at the 1 and let the Colts run the clock out. they could have let them scored and got the ball back with 1:10 or more after kickoff, and only would have got a FG to win the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was true, he should have let them score once the Colts got to the 14 with 1:20 to go. Instead, they stopped Addai at the 1 and let the Colts run the clock out. they could have let them scored and got the ball back with 1:10 or more after kickoff, and only would have got a FG to win the game.

You're actually completely correct in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, the "average" NFL offense includes Cleveland, St. Louis, Buffalo... Last I checked, the Colts are not an "average NFL offense". In that game alone, the Colts scored from that far out 31% of the time. In the 4th quarter? Let's just say it was a tad higher.

 

Do you think this is baseball? NFL teams don't even use this information. I gaurantee you neither of our stats played a role whatsoever in BB's decision.

 

But, 31%, and all the Colt's drives had been started from their own 25 or closer. So the Patriots had been successful in playing the field position game with them. With 7 punts and 2 interceptions, I still like those odds much better than giving them the ball at the 29.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think this is baseball? NFL teams don't even use this information. I gaurantee you neither of our stats played a role whatsoever in BB's decision.

 

But, 31%, and all the Colt's drives had been started from their own 25 or closer. So the Patriots had been successful in playing the field position game with them. With 7 punts and 2 interceptions, I still like those odds much better than giving them the ball at the 29.

Well, given the payroll of those teams, I think they'd be wise to have some geek up in the booth just running numbers all game long so at least they know the deal. You know, just in case they're trying to decide one way or the other.

 

Regardless, I'm not saying that Bill ran the numbers, I'm just saying the numbers support his instinct. That's all that matters.

 

Tell you what. You tell me what you think a fair percentage is for how likely it is for Indy to get 6 if they start on the other team's 30 yard line. Just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was true, he should have let them score once the Colts got to the 14 with 1:20 to go. Instead, they stopped Addai at the 1 and let the Colts run the clock out. they could have let them scored and got the ball back with 1:10 or more after kickoff, and only would have got a FG to win the game.

 

Ya know. If he hadn't already made one controversial decision, i wonder if he would've done this. It's tough to give up the lead in that situation, but it might've made sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belichick certainly has gone for it on 4th down in his own end of the field before. And because it worked, he didn't take tons of heat for it. Did it show a lack of faith in his defense? Maybe so. The 2009 Pats defense has way outperformed most people's expectations this year but they were failing to stop an offense with quick strike capability. Holding onto the ball seems like a logical alternative -- although the odds were probably not with him on this decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belichick certainly has gone for it on 4th down in his own end of the field before. And because it worked, he didn't take tons of heat for it. Did it show a lack of faith in his defense? Maybe so. The 2009 Pats defense has way outperformed most people's expectations this year but they were failing to stop an offense with quick strike capability. Holding onto the ball seems like a logical alternative -- although the odds were probably not with him on this decision.

 

 

Prior to this game the Patriots went for it on 10 4th downs. One was the desperation play that ended the Jets loss. And three were run by Hoyer at the end of the Titans game.

 

So, for all intents and purposes, they had 6 4th down plays. One, the 3rd Quarter run by Morris against the Falcons, was in their own territory. The other 5 were on the opponent's 40, 36, 37, 33 and 3. Four times where a long FG was iffy or punting was not worth it field position wise, and one where they were knocking on the goal line.

 

Also, the distances to go on those 6 were 1,2,1,3,1 & 1. They were 4 of 6. Converted two 1 yard runs and converted a 1 and 3 yard pass. Failed on a 1 yard run and a 2 yard pass. So once this year had they converted a 4th and longer than 1 yard to go.

Edited by Bring Back Pat!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stats

 

The graphs here show that the NFL average for offenses that get a 1st down 65 yards away result in a TD roughly 20% of the time.

 

That's all I need to know.

 

Your graph is excellent fodder for those of us that beleive Belichek made the right call.

 

While "the average for offenses that get a 1st down 65 yards away result in a TD roughly 20% of the time", it also shows that they only score 40% of the time with 1st downs at the 28 yard line....just 40%!

 

So basically, Belichek gambled on a 76% chance that they'd convert the 1st down (Brady's conversion rate on 4th & 2 since 2002), knowing there was a 60% chance his defense would stop them.

 

The more you throw graphs at me like this, the more I agree with the call.

 

That, and the Patriots stopped the Colts 7 times during this game, plus two interceptions.

 

none of which came in the 4th quarter when the Pats were down to back-up defenders, and exceptionally tired from being on the field for basically the entire quarter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was true, he should have let them score once the Colts got to the 14 with 1:20 to go.

 

I agree....at that point, they'd have had over a minute to move 40 yards or so for the game-winning FG.

 

But then we'd be talking about a whole new level of arrogance with BB...the 4th down call was ballsy, and it didn't work out. Letting them score would have been th emost talked about decision in the last couple decades....and it likely would have worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your graph is excellent fodder for those of us that beleive Belichek made the right call.

 

While "the average for offenses that get a 1st down 65 yards away result in a TD roughly 20% of the time", it also shows that they only score 40% of the time with 1st downs at the 28 yard line....just 40%!

 

So basically, Belichek gambled on a 76% chance that they'd convert the 1st down (Brady's conversion rate on 4th & 2 since 2002), knowing there was a 60% chance his defense would stop them.

 

The more you throw graphs at me like this, the more I agree with the call.

 

 

 

none of which came in the 4th quarter when the Pats were down to back-up defenders, and exceptionally tired from being on the field for basically the entire quarter.

He shoots, he scores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information