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 This theme may be out of date.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.]]

Arrogance in Coaching


gilthorp
 Share

Recommended Posts

people are using stats(and not just here) but those stats arent really telling the entire story.....so what if they are 70+% on 4th downs...how many of those were on 4th and 2 on the road...and even in a dome (louder)...what is the % that the Pats convert on 3rd and 2? Bet it is high but guess what they didnt convert on the previous 3rd and 2.....another stat that should be looked at...how many CONSECUTIVE times in a 4th quarter has ANY team (let alone a division leading team) given up 3 consecutive drives of 70+ yards for TDs in the 4th quarter...if i had the access to those numbers I would gladly run them but sadly I dont :wacko:

Right, instead of using stats that actually are metrics to illustrate how effective a team is at doing something, like converting 4th and short or being able to score TDs from the red zone, let's just focus on the sort of random probabilities like how often a team allows 3 long drives in the same quarter. :D

 

It was a dome on the road all night long and the Pats were getting what they needed, when they needed it, all night long. Does this mean they're going to make every single conversion? Of course not, so the fact that they got stopped on 3rd has no bearing at all at how likely they are to make the 4th. And, again, you need to look at the delta between how difficult it would be for Manning to go 70 yds and 30 yds. It's as if everyone is convinced he wouldn't have marched it in from 70 and just as convinced it's a foregone conclusion that he does from the 30. When the reality is that the easiest of those 70 yards he was going to have to pick up are the 40 that are being so hotly debated.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

nothing to do with arrogance...that's just hatred of BB talking. be honest.

 

the call actually showed the utmost respect to Brady to make the play

and the utmost respect to Manning to not want to give him the ball

 

 

paraphrased , Belichick had no faith at all in his defense ...at all

 

its great to respect your quarterback and even love him , but on your own 28 yard line and with a 4th and 2 ( not inches ) you punt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, instead of using stats that actually are metrics to illustrate how effective a team is at doing something, like converting 4th and short or being able to score TDs from the red zone, let's just focus on the sort of random probabilities like how often a team allows 3 long drives in the same quarter. :wacko:

 

It was a dome on the road all night long and the Pats were getting what they needed, when they needed it, all night long. Does this mean they're going to make every single conversion? Of course not, so the fact that they got stopped on 3rd has no bearing at all at how likely they are to make the 4th. And, again, you need to look at the delta between how difficult it would be for Manning to go 70 yds and 30 yds. It's as if everyone is convinced he wouldn't have marched it in from 70 and just as convinced it's a foregone conclusion that he does from the 30. When the reality is that the easiest of those 70 yards he was going to have to pick up are the 40 that are being so hotly debated.

i dont see looking at the probability of 3 long drives as being random at all....cant remember what game I heard it in(maybe colts game) but announcers were saying how hard it was to go 80 yards in the NFL....i never said I thought going 30 yards was a forgone conclusion but I will say that I do think that there are swings of momentum in games and stopping the 4th down attempt would be a HUGH swing of momentum for the O AND the FANS...and sorry if I dont think a 4th and 2 from the other side of the 50 in the 2nd or 3rd quarter has the same "weight" as going for one with 2mins to go on your own 28....seems like ESPN is now at times saying that the odds were in the Pats favor to go for it due to the leagues 4th down average and I am of the camp that all those 4th down conversions aren't even close to being apples to apples and the fact they missed it on 3rd down does say something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the other thing that BB seems to be getting off easy on is his comment about (paraphrased) thought that play would get us at least 1 yard....well it did get them one yard...BUT they needed TWO yards....only person I heard mention that was Mort in an interview with Cowherd on the radio...any other coach goes for it in that scenario and comes up short and then says we thought that play would at least get us 1 yard (but they actually needed 2) would get lambasted....

 

I would love to pose this question to the ESPN gang and coaches etc...if the roles were all reversed and the colts were leading by 6 in NE and on their own 28 yard line and went for it on 4th and 2 and missed it how many people would be saying that Jim Caldwell made a call that shows his inexperience as a head coach, yada yada yada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

paraphrased , Belichick had no faith at all in his defense ...at all

 

its great to respect your quarterback and even love him , but on your own 28 yard line and with a 4th and 2 ( not inches ) you punt

 

just for the record......

i see the reasoning in both sides of this.....punt/go for it.

 

i dont think one can automatically jump and make the assumption that going for it

equals, 'i have no faith in my defense.'

 

it was what he considered the best play at the time to win the game period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just for the record......

i see the reasoning in both sides of this.....punt/go for it.

 

i dont think one can automatically jump and make the assumption that going for it

equals, 'i have no faith in my defense.'

 

it was what he considered the best play at the time to win the game period.

 

i respect that

 

I still believe if it was a 10-7 score and Pats held Manning in check the whole game , BB calls for the punt

 

I think as much as Pats respect Manning , i do believe it was Belichicks doubt that his defense could stop Manning that led to the decision to go for it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont see looking at the probability of 3 long drives as being random at all....cant remember what game I heard it in(maybe colts game) but announcers were saying how hard it was to go 80 yards in the NFL....i never said I thought going 30 yards was a forgone conclusion but I will say that I do think that there are swings of momentum in games and stopping the 4th down attempt would be a HUGH swing of momentum for the O AND the FANS...and sorry if I dont think a 4th and 2 from the other side of the 50 in the 2nd or 3rd quarter has the same "weight" as going for one with 2mins to go on your own 28....seems like ESPN is now at times saying that the odds were in the Pats favor to go for it due to the leagues 4th down average and I am of the camp that all those 4th down conversions aren't even close to being apples to apples and the fact they missed it on 3rd down does say something.

Why do you think the offense is gripping any harder than the defense in that situation? There's just as much, if not more, pressure on the D right there than NE's offense. If they convert, it is basically game over. Even without another 1st, they punt to Indy and leave them on their own 30 with no timeouts and likely less than 30 seconds. NE's offense, on the other hand, does not, contrary to popular opinion, have the balance of the game weighing on their shoulders because Indy still has to drive the 30 hardest yards on the field to win it.

 

A teams historical efficiency at doing something takes into account all the good and the bad flukes on either side. Someone says that they're successful 75% of the time and the comeback is, "But what if the pass gets tipped. What if the guy stumbles. What if this. What if that." But all those what ifs are all factored into the percentage. It's not "NE converts 75% of the time when everything goes right", they convert 75% of the time including both things going right and things going wrong. It just so happens that things go right 3x more often than they don't.

 

As for you point about the probability of 3 long drives. It's a basic rule of probability. You're missing the very nature of it. The fact that Indy just drove 80 yds twice in a row does not mean that it is any less likely to do so again. NE is not "due", just like red is not "due" to come up in roulette just because the last 10 numbers were black. If there's any difference between the game and roulette is that you can make an argument that Indy going 80 yds twice in a row makes them more likely to do so again. Because they're doing something right and NE D has spent a ton of time on the field.

 

Besides. Doesn't the fact that Indy sliced right through them like cheese when they got the ball on the 30 say a lot about that? That maybe BB was 100% right in not wanting any part of seeing his D vs Indy's O at that point?

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think the offense is gripping any harder than the defense in that situation? There's just as much, if not more, pressure on the D right there than NE's offense. If they convert, it is basically game over. Even without another 1st, they punt to Indy and leave them on their own 30 with no timeouts and likely less than 30 seconds. NE's offense, on the other hand, does not, contrary to popular opinion, have the balance of the game weighing on their shoulders because Indy still has to drive the 30 hardest yards on the field to win it.

 

A teams historical efficiency at doing something takes into account all the good and the bad flukes on either side. Someone says that they're successful 75% of the time and the comeback is, "But what if the pass gets tipped. What if the guy stumbles. What if this. What if that." But all those what ifs are all factored into the percentage. It's not "NE converts 75% of the time when everything goes right", they convert 75% of the time including both things going right and things going wrong. It just so happens that things go right 3x more often than they don't.

and I guess you are missing my biggest point.....Home and AWAY can really change how a team performs....so at the very min tell me the % that the Pats covert on the road...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and I guess you are missing my biggest point.....Home and AWAY can really change how a team performs....so at the very min tell me the % that the Pats covert on the road...

I wouldn't know where to begin to find that. However, I would imagine that, considering that NE has earned a rep for being pretty clutch, I would imagine that their deviation would be less than most. Is that a safe assumption? Can we call it 65%?

 

Then you have Indy's red zone efficiency. I took a quick look and couldn't find this year's numbers but did see that they were among the highest since 2001. Thus, I would imagine that it's safe to say that they're operating somewhere at that level. That level, btw, is 59% TDs every time they make it inside the 20. Of course, in this case they're on the 30. So what do you say we still call it 59% and that takes care of any chance that they're doing better than 59% from the 20 this year.

 

Lastly, you have the likelihood of Indy driving from their 30. You pointed out that they were 31% for the game. However, 2 of the 4 previous drives had just happened. While you see this making another less likely, I think that's rather faulty logic and even worse logic than that which draws a sucker to place a bet on red just because the last 10 numbers lit up on the board above the table are black. I would say that he's more likely to score then than he had been for the rest of the game considering they'd been marching at will recently and the D had been on the field for 2 long drives. But let's just say it's 31% for the heck of it.

 

So, you take those numbers and what do you get? NE has a 79% chance of wining (65% + (35%x41%)) if they go for it and 69% chance of winning if they kick it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have seen that...and that does not take into account home vs away...and I think that is a big big part of it

You're really hanging on this.

 

OK, so again, lacking the specific stats. Let's think about it further. Unless they go for it at home way more often than they go for it on the road, then the absolute worst they can be on the road is 50% because, overall, they're right at 75%. Now, again, considering the character of the players involved, I'd be very reluctant to think they'd be significantly worse on the road, but let's just say they are. And let's just say that that 75% success rate on 4th and 2 or less is inflated by the fact that they absolutely never miss at home, so their real chance on Sunday night was only 50/50.

 

And let's assume that Indy is still about as good as any team at punching it in in the red zone (which is the safest of all the assumptions IMO) and are doing so around 59% of the time (which is what the most effective teams do).

 

And let's assume that Indy's chances of going 70 yards are, as you said, 31%. I think there are two things at play that we could fairly say cancel each other out. He only had 2 minutes and a time out to work with (which is actually plenty of time but not all the time in the world) so that could lower his chances a bit. On the other hand, they'd been knifing through the D this quarter so one could fairly say they were trending towards a more effective % of success. None the less, let's just cancel those out.

 

So, now NE's chances of winning are 50%+ (50% * 41%) if they go for it, which = 70.5% which is still better than the 69% chance they have of kicking it away.

 

Curious about your thoughts here.

 

eta:

 

And before you even bring it up, reaching still further for a desperate straw that you need so badly. That NE does in fact go for it way more at home and somehow they make it all the time when they do at home and that's enough to make up for the fact that they only make it 40% of the time on the road. Which, you'd have to admit is a major, major stretch. At that point the decision to go for it becomes fractionally worse, presenting the team with only a 65% chance as opposed to a 69% chance. Not sure if that's a big enough spread to qualify as a horrible call either.

Edited by detlef
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