4th and 2: Belichick's Call

[Jughead10]

It all depends how likely you think Manning would have led that offense down the field for a TD.

[Jughead10]

I'm curious about the Addai run as well. I hope Bill told his team to let him in and his player just made a dumb play.

[Saints-Tigers]

Failing to convert doesn't automatically make the call wrong, just like getting it doesn't automatically make it right.

[wordofi]

The call was dumb even if the Pariots converted the play. Potentially giving Peyton Manning less than 30 yards to score a touchdown is like giving the game away. They should've punted, made Manning go 70 yards to score a touchdown, and lived with the results.

[bigbluedefense]

I'm old school. I wouldve punted.

I rather make Manning go 80 yards for the TD. Your defensive gameplan is totally different in that situation.

I wouldn't assume that Manning drives it down anyway.

I can see why he did it, but I wouldve punted. You gotta have faith in your defense.

Regardless, if you're a Pats fan, you have to like how the Pats are looking right now. Brady is back and healthy, the offense looks great, and the defense is still growing and getting better.

This team will be dangerous come playoff time.

[Saints-Tigers]

i don't see that at all. they went for it and failed to get it = wrong call. period.

they win/lose if they kick it. we know they lose by not kicking it. thus, the hypothetical a still has a better potential end result than the real consequence of b.

what's worth discussing is whether you'd have made the same call, or if you agreed with belichick's motives before the play.

said another way, they tried, failed AND lost. there's no way to justify that series of events as the right move.

I would have went somewhere else. With guys like Moss and Welker, there is really no reason that the game should be in Kevin Faulk's hands.

Do you think going for it was absolutely wrong, or the playcall itself?

I don't think going for the first down was absolutely the wrong idea, but I wasn't a big fan of the playcall. Either way, this whole thing is being blown out of proportion IMO.

[2 Live Crew]

yes, it very obviously means it was wrong. because you lost. there's no other possible choice. if you'd made it, it would've been the right decision for the same reason. but i'm sure at some point people will stop repeating this nonsense.

So many things wrong with this statement.

[d34ng3l021]

so we're already down to a 66% chance of success?

the patriots total offense is clearly an important factor on a passing play.

however, the pats 4th down conversion rate with deion branch, troy brown and an offensive line that could block is clearly of the utmost importance. i don't know why i didn't think of this before.

The points weren't meant to be looked at individually. In general, Tom Brady was having a good season, their passing offense was dominant for that game (375 passing yards to 475 total yards. what does it make a difference in terms of the point that was trying to be made?), and had historically done well on 4th and shorts (yeah. instead of deion branch and troy brown, the patriots now have randy moss and wes welker. a hurt pass blocking line, sure, but we are talking about a 2 yard gain. i am sure their chances of converting a 4th and short have decreased because of those personnel differences...). Based on those odds and how the game was playing out, why not try to gain 2 yards to put the nail in the coffin?

gassed until the timeout.

Timeouts are great, but they don't nullify the effects of a whole game.

only by yardage. his best year in terms of scoring was, statistically, twice as good as what he's doing this year (10% tds, vs 5%). and since we're talking about touchdowns, that somehow seems more relevant.

It is hard to argue against Peyton's 04 season, but the fact that he is doing so much on his own without any help on offense is just as impressive as his 49 TDs in my eyes.

I guess a huge factor in judging this decision is how one thinks Peyton Manning would have done with about 2:15, 1 timeout, and 75 yards to go. I am on the boat that thinks that Peyton would have found a way to drive down for the game winning score (how often has he done that already?) even if he had to start at his own 30. Based on that, going for it to make sure Manning doesn't get the ball doesn't seem like a good idea. However, the chances of Peyton making a mistake, along with the very unproven offense, is there as well, in which case punting makes a lot of sense.

[hockey619]

[QUOTE=njx9;1882703]no, he wasn't right. he very clearly wasn't right. because the play failed.


Based on the information he had AT THE TIME OF THE CALL, it was the right decision. You keep suggesting that it was wrong because it failed, but thats real easy to say after the fact. They didnt know it was going to fail or they wouldnt have done it. With the facts they had at the time it was the right call.

And you say that the colts hadnt been dominating on O because of the INT, but that was on a clear wrong route/miscommunication, so for a guy who keeps saying people dont back up what they say with facts you sure seem to let that one slide no problem. Other than that they scored on two drives of 79 yards in about 2 minutes in the fourth quarter. They had just proven that they could beast right through that defense in very little time with ease, why challenge them for a threepeat performance? if brady has the ball, the patriots get to determine the outcome of the game. The colts were heating up and had all the momentum save for a the hiccup with the INT. And the Pats D line was gassed as all hell, they were shot by the end of the third and it was showing big time, keeping off the field was theyre best shot.

and for everyone who keeps saying it shows a lack of faith in the defense: your looking at it wrong.

Belichick was saying he trusted the matchup of Pats O vs Colts D better than Colts O vs Pats D and the repercussions that came with each.

[Gay Ork Wang]

no, he wasn't right. he very clearly wasn't right. because the play failed.

Based on the information he had AT THE TIME OF THE CALL, it was the right decision. You keep suggesting that it was wrong because it failed, but thats real easy to say after the fact. They didnt know it was going to fail or they wouldnt have done it. With the facts they had at the time it was the right call.

And you say that the colts hadnt been dominating on O because of the INT, but that was on a clear wrong route/miscommunication, so for a guy who keeps saying people dont back up what they say with facts you sure seem to let that one slide no problem. Other than that they scored on two drives of 79 yards in about 2 minutes in the fourth quarter. They had just proven that they could beast right through that defense in very little time with ease, why challenge them for a threepeat performance? if brady has the ball, the patriots get to determine the outcome of the game. The colts were heating up and had all the momentum save for a the hiccup with the INT. And the Pats D line was gassed as all hell, they were shot by the end of the third and it was showing big time, keeping off the field was theyre best shot.

and for everyone who keeps saying it shows a lack of faith in the defense: your looking at it wrong.

Belichick was saying he trusted the matchup of Pats O vs Colts D better than Colts O vs Pats D and the repercussions that came with each.

it was not the right decision. it was a good decision.

lets see

we have a door with 60% to win, a 40% door and a door with only 10%

obviously the door with 60% is maybe the best decision, but if it isnt the right door it was not the right decision. see the right and wrong depend on the outcome. Here the outcome was a loss. so the decision was wrong.

[2 Live Crew]

i'm glad you pointed that out. i would've thought you might've, you know, referenced or refuted some of them, but since you didn't, i'll just assume you have no idea what you're talking about and just couldn't resist the submit button. let me know when you have something borderline worthwhile to add.

Do you have any concept of statistical probabilities?

[d34ng3l021]

um, ok. should i not then suggest that some of them were weak and/or irrelevant?

Feel free to bring up any problems with the points, but don't try to refute for the sake of refuting, like the following:

they weren't going to run the ball, thus, referencing rushing yards is irrelevant.

Okay. Instead of the 475 total yards of offense, I will only reference the 375 yards of passing offense (the leagues best passing offense averages 315 yards a game). The point of the matter still remains the same: they were having success on offense.

which isn't the point. it's not relevant how they did on 4th down in 2002 because, shockingly, this is not 2002. it's not, relatively, remotely close to 2002. feel free to reference relevant stats from this season, if you'd like to continue that point.

The stats that I brought up aren't restricted to only 2002. The percentages were since Tom Brady took over in 2001. Spanning from 2001-now. It may not be the same cast that converted 76% of those 4th and shorts, but it does give people an idea of the relative success that Belichick has had going for it on 4th and 2 or less.

why not play defense? i mean, they'd already picked peyton off twice. they have a long history of outplaying him defensively in big games. and they'd already gotten stops in the game. it's not like manning was suddenly some unstoppable force.

That is definitely the argument for punting, and it is a valid one. Who knows what Peyton would have done. Yes, he has had trouble against the New England defense in the past, but as of late:

09: 28 of 44 (63.6) for 327 yards and 4 TDs with 2 picks. W
08: 21 of 29 (72.4) for 254 yards and 2 TDs with 0 picks. W
07: 16 of 27 (59.3) for 225 yards and 1 TD with 1 pick. L
06*: 27 of 47 (57.4) for 349 yards and 1 TD with 1 pick. W
06: 20 of 36 (55.6) for 326 yards and 2 TDs with 1 pick. W

* = playoffs.

yeah, who the **** is reggie wayne, anyways?

Yeah. Or Pierre Garcon. Or Austin Collie. Or the 29th ranked rushing attack.

[2 Live Crew]

i assume at some point you'll actually make an attempt to understand the difference between making the best choice and making the correct choice. but since simple logic doesn't seem to be your forte, i won't hold my breath.

The answer to my question would be no then.

Lets say you're playing blackjack, and you are dealt a 15. The dealer is showing a 5. What do you do? Odds say that you stay everytime and do not hit because the probability of the dealer busting is high. However, you may still lose the hand because there is always a chance the dealer hits a 17-21.

If you stay and lose, it is not the wrong decision. You can win or lose either way. Sometimes you will lose no matter what choice you make (and vice versa). A sample size of 1 hand does not mean anything. Over the long haul, if you stay everytime, you will come out ahead more times than not. There is no 100% probability.

In Belicheck's mind, the best probability was going for it and not punting. He could have lost even if he punted it. I'm not even saying I agree or disagree with his decision. You do whatever you think gives your team the best probability of winning.

You can disagree with the decision. But to say it is wrong because it didn't work this one time is shortsighted.

[d34ng3l021]

then don't bring up irrelevant information that doesn't help your argument.

Just because you don't find it relevant, it doesn't make the information itself irrelevant. If you refuse to acknowledge certain pieces of info or misread what I have to say, then of course you are going to see it as irrelevant information.

so since 2001? well that makes it more relevant. denver used to stop a lot of third downs in the late 90's. this is relevant to all future discussions involving denver because they still play defense.

?

I understand you're trying to show how that statistic is irrelevant, but the example you have used doesn't really do anything. late 90s =/= 2001-now. That fact is, when Bill Belichick decides to go for it on 4th and 2 or less and has Tom Brady as his QB, he converts 76% of the time. On Sunday, Bill Belichick had Tom Brady as his QB and decided to go for it. The chance of success may not be 76% exactly, but the fact that Brady has had success in these situations for basically his whole starting career whenever Belichick has decided to go for it has to factor into the decision.

he's had some good games. and i'm not and haven't yet suggested that they would've certainly stopped him. but none of those numbers are really world-beating.

Of course we'll never know what would have happened if Peyton had the ball at his own 30, but to suggest that Peyton might have been able to overcome his NE woes from earlier in his career is certainly more plausible now that it was before, seeing his recent success against NE. No QB is going to put up world-beating numbers on a Belichick defense (the man is a genius), but what Peyton has done recently is about as good as your going to do.

or dallas clark. or the second fewest rushing attempts in the league. or the 12th most rushing tds in the league. i can do this all day. saying he has no help is ridiculous and obviously untrue.

There's a reason as to why they have the 2nd fewest rushing attempts. When your running game averages 3.9 yards per carry (good for 23rd in the league), even after the opposing defenses have to account for Manning, then you obviously aren't going to run it much. His receivers (wayne, clark) are good, but if you give Peyton Manning any receiver that can catch on a consistent basis and run routes well, then Manning can make him into a star. That is just my opinion and a different debate all together, but think about it. Watch a Marvin Harrison highlight tape and tell me if he ever broke any tackles, made some crazy jumps, or beat the defense without a double move. A Marvin Harrison highlight tape consists of a double move and then catching the ball either in between the numbers or with outstretched hands - nothing more.

[D-Rod]

odds have absolutely nothing to do with the correct and incorrect decision. they have everything to do with the decision that might pay off most of the time. if i flip a coin, odds are that i'll get heads 50% of the time. if i call heads and it lands tails, i still made the WRONG choice. it's not really that bloody difficult to understand.

right. whichever choice led to you losing was the wrong decision in that case. if i stay and win, i made the right call. if i stay and a 6 comes up, i made the right decision. again, none of this is remotely difficult to comprehend.

and it was the wrong choice. it may have been one of two wrong choices. but it was a choice that was proven to be incorrect and was also one i disagreed with at the time.

it was the wrong choice. he only got one chance. the fact that the "odds" may have pointed to it working differently on a second try are irrelevant. it failed to win the game 100% of the time. thus, it was the (an) incorrect decision.

It's an interesting point, and one that doesn't merit the kind of condescension you are showing. You could argue the point rationally either way.

For example, a statement as to a presently existing fact can clearly be "right" or "wrong." "Tom Brady is male" would be a correct, "right" statement (well, so far as I know!).

You could also argue that a prediction can be proven "right" or "wrong"; someone who predicted in the 60s that man would be living on Mars by the year 2000 would have been proven "wrong" in that prediction (although whether he was "wrong" at any time up to 2000 is another question).

Was BB predicting that by going for it he would win the game? No (in my opinion), he was choosing the option that gave the Patriots the best chance of winning. You can make the choice that gives you the best chance of winning, still lose, and not have made the "wrong" decision. You only exercise a limited control over the variables (play call, personnel, etc), and all you can do is align those variables so that it gives you the best chance of achieving that aim.

It may be that BB chose the wrong variables. But I don't think that the "logic" that you invoke demands that the failure to achieve the goal proves the decision "wrong", just as success in the ultimate goal does not render the decision "right" (as in the case, one might argue, of MJD).

You could also argue - as you are rather condescendingly premising - that a choice as between two options, designed to achieve a particular goal, is right if it achieves that goal, and wrong if it doesn't. I don't personally agree, but I'd be very interested to hear your reasoning. I don't think it's "bloody obvious," and I don't think it does you any credit to say so.

I don't mean to be a pretentious a**hole, and you may well be right; I just think you might show a little more respect to others on an issue that is not as black and white as you paint it.