I'm tired of the Belicheck apologists

[keggerz]

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.

one of the interceptions did happen in the 4th quarter

[Jackass]

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.

 

Except all the post analysis i've seen has shown the odds were with him.

[i_am_the_swammi]

one of the interceptions did happen in the 4th quarter

 

yep, you are right....the one that slipped from Manning's hand. My bad..thought it was 3rd Q, but it was indeed 4th.

 

Side note: just found these stats that show the Pats, by year, on how well they do on 4th and 1-2 yards to go:

 

Year Rush play % Pass play %

2009 66.67% (2-3) 33.33% (1-3)

2008 90.91% (10-11) 66.67% (2-3)

2007 100% (8-8) 100% (6-6)

2006 88.89% (8-9) 66.67% (2-3)

2005 88.89% (8-9) 100% (3-3)

2004 66.67% (2-3) 0% (0-0)

2003 80% (4-5) 66.67% (2-3)

 

TOTAL: 58-69, or 84%. On pass plays: 16-21, or 76% (the number I used earlier, which now includes the miss Sunday night) .

 

percentages

 

Pretty compelling. He took a 76%+ chance that his offense could gain 2 yards and win the game. Hard not to go with the precentages there, expecially knowing the other team only has a 40% chance of converting their posession into a TD.

[pig devilz]

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 post nails it.......and it's also what I have been saying too.

BB called that play, at that time, to win the game right then and there.

It was, in his mind, their best chance to win the game. (ie, keep the ball/run out the clock)

Why some people here can't grasp that, is beyond me.

 

 

There is no need to extrapolate it out to, 'the D was gassed', 'he doesn't trust his D', yada, yada....

Or even, what the percentages are, although I would bet BB does know those percentages and/or

at least the results from being in similar situations in the past.

 

If you must extend it out beyond just that play and you want to start second guessing the D and his faith

in the D, an argument could certainly be made that he decided that if they didn't make the 1st down

he had confidence that his D COULD stop them from the 28.

 

I don't think that entered into his decision, but an argument, based on speculation, just like

all the other D arguments, could be made......

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

yep, you are right....the one that slipped from Manning's hand. My bad..thought it was 3rd Q, but it was indeed 4th.

 

Side note: just found these stats that show the Pats, by year, on how well they do on 4th and 1-2 yards to go:

 

Year Rush play % Pass play %

2009 66.67% (2-3) 33.33% (1-3)

2008 90.91% (10-11) 66.67% (2-3)

2007 100% (8-8) 100% (6-6)

2006 88.89% (8-9) 66.67% (2-3)

2005 88.89% (8-9) 100% (3-3)

2004 66.67% (2-3) 0% (0-0)

2003 80% (4-5) 66.67% (2-3)

 

TOTAL: 58-69, or 84%. On pass plays: 16-21, or 76% (the number I used earlier, which now includes the miss Sunday night) .

 

percentages

 

Pretty compelling. He took a 76%+ chance that his offense could gain 2 yards and win the game. Hard not to go with the precentages there, expecially knowing the other team only has a 40% chance of converting their posession into a TD.

 

 

Yeah, good thing they included 4th and 1's, since the play Sunday was 4th and 2.

 

On 4th and 1, you can surprise the D with a pass since the run is still in play. 4th and 2 is much more of a passing down, and thus more difficult to convert.

[keggerz]

yep, you are right....the one that slipped from Manning's hand. My bad..thought it was 3rd Q, but it was indeed 4th.

 

Side note: just found these stats that show the Pats, by year, on how well they do on 4th and 1-2 yards to go:

 

Year Rush play % Pass play %

2009 66.67% (2-3) 33.33% (1-3)

2008 90.91% (10-11) 66.67% (2-3)

2007 100% (8-8) 100% (6-6)

2006 88.89% (8-9) 66.67% (2-3)

2005 88.89% (8-9) 100% (3-3)

2004 66.67% (2-3) 0% (0-0)

2003 80% (4-5) 66.67% (2-3)

 

TOTAL: 58-69, or 84%. On pass plays: 16-21, or 76% (the number I used earlier, which now includes the miss Sunday night) .

 

percentages

 

Pretty compelling. He took a 76%+ chance that his offense could gain 2 yards and win the game. Hard not to go with the precentages there, expecially knowing the other team only has a 40% chance of converting their posession into a TD.

 

from your link:

 

Belichick has been successful nearly 60 percent of the time he's gone for it on fourth down in his career with the Pats. In the past four seasons, that percentage has been well above 70. Those are the percentages he played, although he bypassed how things have gone this season on fourth-down attempts (45 percent) and when he's thrown it on fourth-and-three or less (50 percent).

[i_am_the_swammi]

from your link:

 

Belichick has been successful nearly 60 percent of the time he's gone for it on fourth down in his career with the Pats.

 

Those stats include pre-Brady, which makes using them in our argument irrelevant. I didn't see the purpose in analyzing how BB had done in times he had Drew Bledsoe under center.

 

when he's thrown it on fourth-and-three or less (50 percent).

 

1-2 this year? Is that really a big enough sample to draw a logical conclusion?

Edited November 18, 2009 by i_am_the_swammi

[i_am_the_swammi]

Yeah, good thing they included 4th and 1's, since the play Sunday was 4th and 2.

 

On 4th and 1, you can surprise the D with a pass since the run is still in play. 4th and 2 is much more of a passing down, and thus more difficult to convert.

 

So, you're saying if it was 4th-1, in your mind it would have been OK?

[keggerz]

Those stats include pre-Brady, which makes using them in our argument irrelevant. I didn't see the purpose in analyzing how BB had done in times he had Drew Bledsoe under center.

 

 

 

1-2 this year? Is that really a big enough sample to draw a logical conclusion?

just pointing out those were numbers used in the article you linked to...as I stated earlier i think there are variables that just cant be measured statistically and as a stats guy you know that isnt easy for me to say

[gbpfan1231]

I think I kept seeing a number like 40% chance they would score from 70 yards away or something close to that. Those numbers did not take into account that there was only 2 minutes left on the clock and I think the Colts had used all (or maybe one left) of the timeouts. Not being able to stop the clock and the other team knowing that a FG was not in the picture significantly shortens the field and gives the defense a huge advantage.

 

Crunch all the numbers you want and punting the ball IS the right decision. BB screwed up and I think he even knows that.

[i_am_the_swammi]

just pointing out those were numbers used in the article you linked to...as I stated earlier i think there are variables that just cant be measured statistically and as a stats guy you know that isnt easy for me to say

 

I agree 100%...and I think those variables point even more to going for it rather than punting.

 

Variables: his defense was leaking oil most of the 4th quarter; he was down to back-ups at a number of key defensive positions; it was Peyton Manning he'd be punting to.

 

The only variable in favor of punting is the potential gain in filed position (assuming the punt isn't returned for decent yardage)....and that plus/minus 40 yard difference in field position, IMO, wasn't going to make a difference. The clock was not a factor...not with the Colts having two timeouts, and Manning running the Colt's potent two-minute drill. What other variable was there other than the liklihood they'd pick up some field position?

[WaterMan]

I think I kept seeing a number like 40% chance they would score from 70 yards away or something close to that. Those numbers did not take into account that there was only 2 minutes left on the clock and I think the Colts had used all (or maybe one left) of the timeouts. Not being able to stop the clock and the other team knowing that a FG was not in the picture significantly shortens the field and gives the defense a huge advantage.

 

Crunch all the numbers you want and punting the ball IS the right decision. BB screwed up and I think he even knows that.

 

I'm pretty sure the Colts had some time outs left. And we've seen Manning go the whole field with no time outs and a minute left. It's not exactly like Belicheck has Harrion and Bruschi back there still.

[buddahj]

I'm pretty sure the Colts had some time outs left. And we've seen Manning go the whole field with no time outs and a minute left. It's not exactly like Belicheck has Harrion and Bruschi back there still.

the colts 2nd to last drive started @ their own 21 & took 1:49 ending in a TD. no matter what belicheck says in public, there's no way he had any confidence in his DEF. they also had one TO left.

Edited November 18, 2009 by buddahj

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

So, you're saying if it was 4th-1, in your mind it would have been OK?

 

 

No, I'm saying the Patriots are VERY good at converting 4th and 1's and including those in the writer's analysis of the Patriots conversion rates of 4th and 1-3 is skewing the numbers. This was a 4th and 2, which is not a running down, so the Patriots success running and converting 4th and 1's is irrelevant.

 

This year alone they have tried 11 4th down plays, 7 that have real meaning (see my earlier post on the issue). Of those 7, four are 1 yard attempts. They are 3-4 (75%) converting 2 of 3 on the ground (the failed attempt was a Maroney run, which he'll never get again) and one through the air to Moss.

 

On 4th and 2 or 3 they are now 1-3 this year, and all are through the air.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Bring Back Pat!!!

[keggerz]

you know there was one thing that really sort of struck me as odd and today I finally got around to digging into the play by play

 

I have heard people say how the NE defense had put up almost 500 yards (488) on the Colts so their offense was clicking and why not go for it yada yada yada...

 

well here is a little tidbit to chew on...

 

over the final 12:14 of the game(their final 3 possessions):

 

Pats scored THREE points

They ran 17* offensive plays that generated a 47 net yards which is an average of 2.76 yards/play

take out the Faulk play if you would like and you are still looking at 2.88 yards/play

prior to those 17 offensive plays the Pats had put up 441 yards on 53 plays for an average of 8.32 yards/play

Of their final 17 plays NINE of them netted LESS than 2 yards(8 of 16 went for less than 2 yards prior to the faulk play)

 

Sure looks like the Pats D wasn't the only part of their team leaking oil.

 

 

*Not including their 1 punt, 1 FG or their last play of the game since that had no bearing on the 4th & 2

 

Oh and to put the 2.76/2.88 into perspective...The Cleveland Browns averaged 3.3 yards/play on Monday nite and we know how piss poor that offense was...and before someone tries to give me crap about this analogy the point is to point out just how POORLY the Pats offense was playing over the final 12:14 of the game.

Edited November 19, 2009 by keggerz

[gbpfan1231]

the colts 2nd to last drive started @ their own 21 & took 1:49 ending in a TD. no matter what belicheck says in public, there's no way he had any confidence in his DEF. they also had one TO left.

OK so for all the number crunchers out there that are saying it was a good call crunch these numbers...

 

What is the chance of a team scoring on two drives in a row greater than 60 yards and do both of them in less than 2 minutes. I am betting that numbers VERY VERY small.

 

I know that is a stupid point but so are all the arguments defending BB. It was a dumb move and that is why nobody has done that move in the past and I am pretty sure nobody will do again for a long long time.

[Delicious_bass]

I cant believe this is still being discussed and/or argued like it is at this point

 

BB knows his offense is the strength of his team. He saw an opportunity to play to his strength and win the game while he still controlled his own destiny. He made an agressive move to try to win the game and I find that rather refreshing compared to the other sheep coaches who would punt and then pray like hell they can stop their opponent while employing some form of prevent defense which would likely end up yielding a slow death in the end.

 

They took a shot and it didnt work out. Doesnt mean it wasnt a good shot to take

[detlef]

OK so for all the number crunchers out there that are saying it was a good call crunch these numbers...

 

What is the chance of a team scoring on two drives in a row greater than 60 yards and do both of them in less than 2 minutes. I am betting that numbers VERY VERY small.

 

I know that is a stupid point but so are all the arguments defending BB. It was a dumb move and that is why nobody has done that move in the past and I am pretty sure nobody will do again for a long long time.

The difference between the numbers we are offering and what you are is that ours are based on how past success predicts future success and yours is more along the lines of what are the chances of flipping a coin and having it land heads three times in a row. If Indy's chances of driving 70 yds are what they are. That they had just done so twice in a row should not have any adverse effect on their chances. If anything, it would increase their chances because it appears NE's D was peeing blood.

 

In other words, it doesn't matter how rare a feat it is for someone to score 3 consecutive drives from 70 yds or more. That stat may have been relevant at the beginning of the quarter when they had to score 3x. However, at the time of the play call, the only thing that matters is what their chances are of doing it once.

 

Riddle me this. You've got a shooting guard who's just on fire. Just made 6 shots in a row. Do you stop feeding him the ball because he must be bound to miss? I mean, the chances of making 7 shots in a row must be really, really slim.

 

It's really pretty basic stats.

Edited November 18, 2009 by detlef

[gbpfan1231]

The difference between the numbers we are offering and what you are is that ours are based on how past success predicts future success and yours is more along the lines of what are the chances of flipping a coin and having it land heads three times in a row. If Indy's chances of driving 70 yds are what they are. That they had just done so twice in a row should not have any adverse effect on their chances. If anything, it would increase their chances because it appears NE's D was peeing blood.

 

In other words, it doesn't matter how rare a feat it is for someone to score 3 consecutive drives from 70 yds or more. That stat may have been relevant at the beginning of the quarter when they had to score 3x. However, at the time of the play call, the only thing that matters is what their chances are of doing it once.

 

Riddle me this. You've got a shooting guard who's just on fire. Just made 6 shots in a row. Do you stop feeding him the ball because he must be bound to miss? I mean, the chances of making 7 shots in a row must be really, really slim.

 

It's really pretty basic stats.

I agree with you 100% - I was throwing that out really trying to say that stats and odds don't really matter. I think it was a dumb move and you have to put a bit of trust in your defense to be able to stop someone from going over 60 yards in 2 minutes when you know they can't run the ball. The biggest stat or number to look at is the fact that nobody else goes for it in that situation and that should tell you the whole story.

[cdj7k]

it sounds like if you are a smart coach with an above average team, why would you ever punt on 4th down and less than 2 yards to go from your side of the field?

 

maybe everyone who plays the football video and board games are right going for it on 4th down from anywhere on the field.

 

in 40 years of watching football, i have never seen that move. It is the gamble that is not worth the price if you don't make it. That is what the genius's on the sideline for all those years already figured out.

[pig devilz]

it sounds like if you are a smart coach with an above average team, why would you ever punt on 4th down and less than 2 yards to go from your side of the field?

 

maybe everyone who plays the football video and board games are right going for it on 4th down from anywhere on the field.

 

in 40 years of watching football, i have never seen that move. It is the gamble that is not worth the price if you don't make it. That is what the genius's on the sideline for all those years already figured out.

 

i guess you never heard of this guy

[i_am_the_swammi]

over the final 12:14 of the game(their final 3 possessions):

 

Pats scored THREE points

They ran 17* offensive plays that generated a 47 net yards which is an average of 2.76 yards/play

take out the Faulk play if you would like and you are still looking at 2.88 yards/play

prior to those 17 offensive plays the Pats had put up 441 yards on 53 plays for an average of 8.32 yards/play

Of their final 17 plays NINE of them netted LESS than 2 yards(8 of 16 went for less than 2 yards prior to the faulk play)

 

Sure looks like the Pats D wasn't the only part of their team leaking oil.

 

 

*Not including their 1 punt, 1 FG or their last play of the game since that had no bearing on the 4th & 2

 

Oh and to put the 2.76/2.88 into perspective...The Cleveland Browns averaged 3.3 yards/play on Monday nite and we know how piss poor that offense was...and before someone tries to give me crap about this analogy the point is to point out just how POORLY the Pats offense was playing over the final 12:14 of the game.

 

the numbers you chose to crunch were the one's where the Patriots were protecting a 17-point lead, and not calling bombs to Moss and passing 2 out of every 3 downs....

 

Do me a favor and compare the ratio of run-pass thru the first 3 quarters, and the ratio of run-pass thru the final 12:14. I am guessing 65-35 passing for the first 2/3s of the game, and closer to 50/50 for the final 12:14. Of course they were netting less yards per play...they were trying to move the chains, run the ball, and eat some clock...and I'm saying this without even looking, so I may be dead wrong.

[buddahj]

can't we just agree to disagree?

[Chief Dick]

I cant believe this is still being discussed and/or argued like it is at this point

 

BB knows his offense is the strength of his team. He saw an opportunity to play to his strength and win the game while he still controlled his own destiny. He made an agressive move to try to win the game and I find that rather refreshing compared to the other sheep coaches who would punt and then pray like hell they can stop their opponent while employing some form of prevent defense which would likely end up yielding a slow death in the end.

 

They took a shot and it didnt work out. Doesnt mean it wasnt a good shot to take

 

Yep. This is why football isn't played on a spreadsheet. Thank God.

[keggerz]

the numbers you chose to crunch were the one's where the Patriots were protecting a 17-point lead, and not calling bombs to Moss and passing 2 out of every 3 downs....

 

Do me a favor and compare the ratio of run-pass thru the first 3 quarters, and the ratio of run-pass thru the final 12:14. I am guessing 65-35 passing for the first 2/3s of the game, and closer to 50/50 for the final 12:14. Of course they were netting less yards per play...they were trying to move the chains, run the ball, and eat some clock...and I'm saying this without even looking, so I may be dead wrong.

of those 16 plays(10 pass (including a sack) and 6 runs).....63% were passes

prior to those plays it was a 58% pass to 42% run ratio

 

EDIT: and since when do the Pats let up or take it easy on the Colts?

 

EDIT 2: they threw to moss 16 times...deep 5 times...thats 31% of the time....over the final 12:14 they threw to moss 3 times and none were deep but just one of those passes would have kept the ratio the same so it isn't like they really were throwing it deep 80% of the time and then went to all short passes

Edited November 19, 2009 by keggerz