When it happened I agreed with Bill Belichick's call to go for it

[edjr 6,580]

Where do we factor in that Chris Hanson has one of the worst net punting averages in the league at around 35 yards per? How long does it take to Manning to grab that 35 yards back with the Pats likely playing a soft zone and giving away the underneath? 2/3 plays, 20-25 seconds maybe? That's my guess. So basically you're eschewing a good chance to likely salt the game away to burn 25 seconds off the clock and very possibly be right back where you started. The Pats D still had a chance to stop them and they failed pretty miserably, with Indy having plenty of time to burn. I really think there is a good chance that it would have played out pretty similarly if they had punted it away.

 

Arm Chair Coaching at it's best, not factoring everything.

 

Anyone that says BB was in the wrong, thinks they are smarter and a better coach than him?

[Stewburtx8 67]

I completely understand why soo many people are against this call. When the play happened I was sitting there saying how crazy he was.

 

BUT thinking about the situation, my personal opinion is that the Pats had a better chance of winning the game by converting the 4th and 2 than they did of stopping Peyton Manning from driving 70 yards. It was the 4th quarter and their defense was gassed. I know the decision was VERY unconventional, but if they convert that 4th down (which I think they did anyways) then the game is Over and Belichick is a genius for not giving Peyton Manning another shot. It was one of those games where whoever had the ball last was probably going to win. I'd rather trust Tom Brady, Randy Moss, Wes Welker, etc than trust my defense to stop Manning, Wayne, Clark, Addai,etc. Just my opinion. I understand that punting the ball was the safe call, but I think Belichick made what he thought was the best call. As a long time football fan I ended up liking the call a lot. And this is coming from someone who hates the Pats and Belichick.

[kmbryant09 1]

Where do we factor in that Chris Hanson has one of the worst net punting averages in the league at around 35 yards per? How long does it take to Manning to grab that 35 yards back with the Pats likely playing a soft zone and giving away the underneath? 2/3 plays, 20-25 seconds maybe? That's my guess. So basically you're eschewing a good chance to likely salt the game away to burn 25 seconds off the clock and very possibly be right back where you started. The Pats D still had a chance to stop them and they failed pretty miserably, with Indy having plenty of time to burn. I really think there is a good chance that it would have played out pretty similarly if they had punted it away.

Make sure you factor in our sh!tty special teams play (Colts), we don't even have a true punt returner...Factor that in.

[donhaas 18]

Arm Chair Coaching at it's best, not factoring everything.

 

Anyone that says BB was in the wrong, thinks they are smarter and a better coach than him?

 

I'm not saying I'm a better singer/songwriter/musician/performer/persona than Prince, but I have right to critique him when he wears assless chaps or changes his name to a symbol

[TD Ryan2 316]

Make sure you factor in our sh!tty special teams play (Colts), we don't even have a true punt returner...Factor that in.

hold on... carry the 2, move the zero, invert the square root...

 

OK.

I've got it in there.

 

STILL comes out to a 64.2% chance Manning marches down the field to win it.

 

Belichick's best odds to win are going for it on 4th down.

[Joey Gladstone 33]

if they get it, he's suddenly a genius?

 

Nope, he's lucky if they make it. And it's still the wrong call.

[Joey Gladstone 33]

Right ...

 

No blame goes to the multiple redzone turnovers, blown timeouts called by the players or the defense for giving up multiple scores in the 4rth quarter. Its ALL Bill's fault.

 

I am sorry but the asshats are out in full force today.

 

First, who the fock are you?

 

Second, yes, this is 100% on Bill Bellichick. He went for it on 4th and 2 on his own 28. He risked giving Peyton focking Manning, one of the greatest QB's of all time, 28 focking yards to beat him. I dont care what else happens. He made a terrible call at a crucial time

[edjr 6,580]

I'm not saying I'm a better singer/songwriter/musician/performer/persona than Prince, but I have right to critique him when he wears assless chaps or changes his name to a symbol

 

No such thing as chaps with an ass, please just call them chaps, no need for the assless. It's like saying wet water, makes no sense.

 

yes, I am an expert on the subject

[kmbryant09 1]

hold on... carry the 2, move the zero, invert the square root...

 

OK.

I've got it in there.

 

STILL comes out to a 64.2% chance Manning marches down the field to win it.

 

Belichick's best odds to win are going for it on 4th down.

My point was that if Parrot really wants to factor in his punter's average this season in going for it on 4th and 2 on your own 28, than certainly you'd have to factor in our special teams, which has perennially been one of the worst in the league.

[parrot 789]

Make sure you factor in our sh!tty special teams play (Colts), we don't even have a true punt returner...Factor that in.

 

Fine, the Pats net forty yards. Really doesn't change anything. Peyton throws a few underneath patterns to Clark and we're right back in the same general vicinity with Peyton still having plenty of time. People are acting like this happened at the Patriots' 2 yard line, it didn't, it happened at the thirty, and the defense still had a reasonable chunk of field to work with and defend the endzone. Even if they had punted it away there's a good chance Peyton would have marched them right back to that general vicinity in no time at all, so punting would not have been very beneficial IMO.

[parrot 789]

Obviously it wasn't. If he ran 5 yards instead of 2 then catching the ball cleanly wouldn't have been an issue.

 

Or maybe at five yards Bullitt has tightened up his cushion and that coupled with the ball being in the air longer, it gets knocked away.

[TD Ryan2 316]

My point was that if Parrot really wants to factor in his punter's average this season in going for it on 4th and 2 on your own 28, than certainly you'd have to factor in our special teams, which has perennially been one of the worst in the league.

 

no problem (and I understand your point).

 

I'm really just laughing at the whole uproar.

ESPN wants to tell everyone what a horrible decision Belichick made, that it was a no-brainer to punt and now they all flock to the internet to act like football experts after ESPN filled their haids with all the right answers.

 

it's not a no-brainer either way.

there are very legit reasons for going for it there despite the fact that it takes some unconventional thinking.

 

here, mess with the numbers:

Decision Calculator

[nobody 2,672]

It's a fairly marginal decision. People can spout off percentages, but they are at best used as a guide. The Pats and Colts have never been in this exact same situation so all you can do is estimate the chances of things going down. I don't think going either way would be especially horrible or great. Based on my assessment, I give the slight edge to going for it. I mean you have to figure they have a pretty good shot at getting 2 yards.

[parrot 789]

It's a fairly marginal decision. People can spout off percentages, but they are at best used as a guide. The Pats and Colts have never been in this exact same situation so all you can do is estimate the chances of things going down. I don't think going either way would be especially horrible or great. Based on my assessment, I give the slight edge to going for it. I mean you have to figure they have a pretty good shot at getting 2 yards.

 

[nobody 2,672]

Decision Calculator

 

50% chance the Pats make it

80% chance the Colts score from the 30

40% chance the Colts score after a punt

 

See. It doens't matter either way.

[Joey Gladstone 33]

no problem (and I understand your point).

 

I'm really just laughing at the whole uproar.

ESPN wants to tell everyone what a horrible decision Belichick made, that it was a no-brainer to punt and now they all flock to the internet to act like football experts after ESPN filled their haids with all the right answers.

 

it's not a no-brainer either way.

there are very legit reasons for going for it there despite the fact that it takes some unconventional thinking.

 

here, mess with the numbers:

Decision Calculator

 

I was ranting about how stupid it was the minute I saw the Pats werent sending out the punt unit.

 

I understand people wanting to go against the grain because of the oversaturation from ESPN and the rest of the mainstream media....but come on. It's the most basic of football common sense.

[parrot 789]

I understand people wanting to go against the grain because of the oversaturation from ESPN and the rest of the mainstream media....but come on. It's the most basic of football common sense.

 

It's not about going against the grain, it's about burning a few calories and actually considering what the best move really is rather than just taking the usual approach as gospel.

[nobody 2,672]

Actually what it really boils down to is whether you think there is a big difference between the Colts scoring from 30 yards out and 70 yards out. If you don't think there is much difference, then you think the Pats should have went for it. If you think there is a big difference, then you think the Pats should have punted. It's that simple.

[TD Ryan2 316]

I was ranting about how stupid it was the minute I saw the Pats werent sending out the punt unit.

 

I wonder how many Colts fans were disappointed that NE wasn't punting?

 

it's tough to get an accurate answer after the fact, but I'd bet many Colts fans were hoping for a punt there, hoping for the chance to get the ball back and one more shot at the endzone.

 

I believe you... I'm sure you were ranting about how stupid the call was... that's OK... but the call isn't as stupid as you (or others) want to make it sound/seem.

 

2 yards... all you have to do is get 2 yards and you win the game.

 

If you had told NE fans ahead of time (before the game) that all they'd need was one shot at 2 yards to win the game, would they have liked their chances?

 

How would the betting lines have run? would NE have been a huge favorite to get 2 yards on one play and walk out of IND with a W?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I wonder how many Colts fans were disappointed that NE wasn't punting?

 

it's tough to get an accurate answer after the fact, but I'd bet many Colts fans were hoping for a punt there, hoping for the chance to get the ball back and one more shot at the endzone.

 

I believe you... I'm sure you were ranting about how stupid the call was... that's OK... but the call isn't as stupid as you (or others) want to make it sound/seem.

 

2 yards... all you have to do is get 2 yards and you win the game.

 

If you had told NE fans ahead of time (before the game) that all they'd need was one shot at 2 yards to win the game, would they have liked their chances?

 

How would the betting lines have run? would NE have been a huge favorite to get 2 yards on one play and walk out of IND with a W?

 

I think that question is whether you wanted to try to get 2 yards during a confusing situation or whether you wanted to force Manning to drive 70 yards for a TD. I wanted the punt.

[PsychoBelichickFan 0]

this was a horrible call.. Belichick lost the game for the pats

[McPhreak 0]

Or maybe at five yards Bullitt has tightened up his cushion and that coupled with the ball being in the air longer, it gets knocked away.

 

 

That's fine. I'd rather Faulk run the 5 yards and leave the results up to him and the defender than have him run 2 yards and leave the results up to him, the defender, and the side judge.

[FeelingMN 273]

In light of my recent post on the difficulty of changing our decision-making habits - even when we're aware that our habits are biased and flawed - I thought it might be interesting to look at two examples from professional football. Why sports? Given the intense competitive pressure in the NFL - there's a thin line between victory and ignominy - you'd expect head coaches to have corrected many of their decision-making mistakes, especially once those mistakes have been empirically demonstrated. But you'd be wrong.

 

Consider some research done by David Romer, an economist at UC Berkeley, who published a 2001 paper entitled "Do Firms Maximize? Evidence From Professional Football". The question Romer was trying to answer is familiar to every NFL fan: what to do on 4th down? Is it better to bring on the kicking team for a punt or field-goal attempt? Under what conditions should coaches risk going for it?

 

To answer this immortal mystery, Romer analyzed every fourth down during the first quarter in every NFL game between 1998 and 2000. (He had help from a computer program.) The first thing Romer did was figure out the fluctuating value of a first down at each point on the football field. After all, a first down was more valuable for a team if it occurred on an opponents two yard line than on their own twenty yard line.

 

Then Romer calculated the statistical likelihood of going for it on fourth down under various circumstances and actually getting a first down. He also calculated the probability of kicking a successful field goal from various spots on the field. So let's say you are NFL coach, and you have a fourth and three on your opponent's 30 yard line. Romer could tell you that 1) you have a 60 percent chance of getting a first down, and that teams with 1st downs inside the thirty yard line score a touchdown 40 percent of the time, for an expected point value of 1.7 and 2) that field goal attempts from the 32 yard line failed almost 65 percent of the time, which meant that going for a field goal only had an expected point value of 1.05. In other words, it's almost twice as effective to go for it than to attempt a field goal.

 

So what do most coaches do? Well, NFL coaches consistently make the wrong decision. According to Romer's analysis, teams would have been better off going for it on fourth down during the 1st quarter on 1100 different drives. Instead, coaches decided to kick the ball 992 times. This meant that NFL coaches made the wrong decision over 90 percent of the time. Romer summarized his counterintuitive results: "This analysis implies that teams should be quite aggressive. A team facing fourth and goal is better off on average trying for a touchdown as long as it is within 5 yards of the endzone. At midfield, being within 5 yards of a first down makes going for it on average desirable. Even on its own 10 yard line - 90 yards from a score - a team within three yards of a first down is better off on average going for it." Romer conservatively estimates that a more aggressive approach on fourth downs would make a team 5 percent more likely to win the game. This is a significant advantage: a coach willing to endure the risks would win one more game in three seasons out of every four.

 

But if kicking a field goal or punting on fourth down is such a bad idea, then why do coaches always do it? To explain the consistently bad decisions of NFL coaches, Romer offered two different answers. The first is risk aversion. If coaches followed Romer's strategy, they would fail about half the time they were within ten yards of the endzone. This means that instead of kicking an easy field goal and settling for three points, they would come away empty handed. Although that's a winning strategy in the long-run, it's awfully hard to stomach. (As Daniel Kahneman notes, "Worst case scenarios overwhelm our probabilistic assessment, as the mere prospect of the worst case has so much more emotional oomph behind it.") After a long drive down the field, fans expect some points. A coach that routinely disappointed the crowd would quickly get fired.

 

The second reason coaches stink at making decisions on fourth down is that they stink at statistics. As Romer politely writes, "Many skills are more important to running a successful football team than a command of mathematical and statistical tools...It may be that individuals involved want to make the decisions to maximize their teams' chance of winning, but that they rely on experience and intuition rather than formal analysis."

 

So how have coaches reacted to this data? In 2001, before Romer published his findings, the average team went for it on fourth down 15.1 times per season. During the 2005 season, the average NFL team went for it on fourth down 14.5 times. Learning about our mistaken decisions led to even worse decisions.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/index.php?page=2

 

 

Not exactly apples to apples, but it does lend some credence to BB's decision making skills. Still think it was a bad decision, because, well, the Patriots lost. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.....or so called "genius" coaching.

[Joey Gladstone 33]

It's not about going against the grain, it's about burning a few calories and actually considering what the best move really is rather than just taking the usual approach as gospel.

 

The usual approach was the right approach. I dont care if it was only 2 yards, and how good their offense is. The consequences of not getting those two yards was definitely not worth the risk

[edjr 6,580]

I think that question is whether you wanted to try to get 2 yards during a confusing situation or whether you wanted to force Manning to drive 70 yards for a TD. I wanted the punt.

 

they called a timeout before the play, I don't see how you could have possibly thought that was confusing.

[PsychoBelichickFan 0]

BB basically told his D he had no faith in them......Good luck with that emotionally scarred defense the rest of the year BB.

[KC Deuce 1]

Indianapolis Possessions

____________________________________

15:00 1 01:26 IND 23 3 4 Punt

11:47 1 03:28 IND 10 8 90 Touchdown

04:47 1 01:27 IND 20 4 19 Punt

13:15 2 00:59 IND 20 3 7 Punt

11:18 2 01:35 IND 24 3 -6 Punt

07:19 2 03:02 IND 20 8 80 Touchdown

03:54 2 01:04 IND 25 3 0 Punt

01:36 2 01:04 IND 24 5 16 Punt

11:50 3 01:18 IND 14 4 24 Intercepted Pass

02:41 3 02:26 IND 20 6 16 Punt

14:18 4 02:04 IND 21 5 79 Touchdown

07:54 4 00:00 IND 18 1 17 Intercepted Pass

04:12 4 01:49 IND 21 6 79 Touchdown

02:00 4 01:47 @NE29 4 29 Touchdown

 

Statistical facts from the game. I would say that there is much less than a 70% chance Peyton takes them down and scores with the length of the field to go. Additionally, NE wasn't exactly tearing it up offensively their last few drives. It was a STUPID decision to go for it, period.

 

The point that was brought up about opening the playbook is a huge factor as well. They are much more one-dimensional when having to travel 70+ yards in less than two minutes.

[parrot 789]

Statistical facts from the game. I would say that there is much less than a 70% chance Peyton takes them down and scores with the length of the field to go. Additionally, NE wasn't exactly tearing it up offensively their last few drives. It was a STUPID decision to go for it, period.

 

Why is it that you evaluate Indy's offensive effectiveness on the entire game, but base the Patriots' on "their last few drives"? Would it be because the Patriots for the entire game had been far more effective than their last few drives might indicate, or because the Colts had been far more effective their last few drives than the entire game might indicate? Either way it's pretty convenient.

 

There doesn't need to be a 70% chance that Peyton leads them down to a TD, anything more than a 30-40% chance lends itself to going for it.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

they called a timeout before the play, I don't see how you could have possibly thought that was confusing.

 

They were confused as to whether they were going for it or not. It was not as if they had it planned out. If they had it planned out, they would have likely run the ball on the play prior to have Indy use a timeout or have it run down to the 2 minute warning. Then they would have likely been closer to being one yard out giving them the added option for the sneak or another run.

 

They were confused as to what they wanted to do during that whole sequence and it carried over to the play call and execution.

[shutdown 40]

It was an terrible call, and egregiously so. I'm no statistician, but I assume punting in that situation decreases your opponent's odds of scoring very significantly.

 

Belichick has always had moments of needless aggression in his play calling. He suffers from a certain type of hubris and last night was the epitome of it.

 

I'm glad I fell asleep and missed it in real time.

 

 

I disagree with that way of looking at it. If I'm coaching, I look at it in this manner

 

Odds my future HOF QB and my offense can get 2 yards for a first down vs Odds their future HOF QB can drive his team downfield against my average defense with over 2 minutes left to play.

 

I think the odds of the pats offense converting that play were greater than the odds of the pats DST stopping Manning if they had punted. If that what Bellichek thought, then he made the right decision.

[kmbryant09 1]

50% chance the Pats make it

80% chance the Colts score from the 30

40% chance the Colts score after a punt

 

See. It doens't matter either way.

In all honesty, theres pretty much a 100% chance, maybe 95% chance, that the Colts score after the turnover on downs. As a Colts fan, I really started celebrating after the 4th down play, and it may sound cocky, but I almost knew it was a matter of going through the motions to get into the endzone after that. Imagine how bad that DEF must feel, knowing BB went for it to keep them off the field, basically saying...you guys can't stop Peyton Manning, not for 70 yards..."Oh sh!t we didn't get the first, now stop Manning from going 30!".

[parrot 789]

In all honesty, theres pretty much a 100% chance, maybe 95% chance, that the Colts score after the turnover on downs.

 

If you believe that's true, then what is the chance they score from 60-70 yards? Especially considering that in situations like these the first 20-30 yards are often basically given away?

[jgcrawfish 232]

Indianapolis Possessions

____________________________________

15:00 1 01:26 IND 23 3 4 Punt

11:47 1 03:28 IND 10 8 90 Touchdown

04:47 1 01:27 IND 20 4 19 Punt

13:15 2 00:59 IND 20 3 7 Punt

11:18 2 01:35 IND 24 3 -6 Punt

07:19 2 03:02 IND 20 8 80 Touchdown

03:54 2 01:04 IND 25 3 0 Punt

01:36 2 01:04 IND 24 5 16 Punt

11:50 3 01:18 IND 14 4 24 Intercepted Pass

02:41 3 02:26 IND 20 6 16 Punt

14:18 4 02:04 IND 21 5 79 Touchdown

07:54 4 00:00 IND 18 1 17 Intercepted Pass

04:12 4 01:49 IND 21 6 79 Touchdown

02:00 4 01:47 @NE29 4 29 Touchdown

 

Statistical facts from the game. I would say that there is much less than a 70% chance Peyton takes them down and scores with the length of the field to go. Additionally, NE wasn't exactly tearing it up offensively their last few drives. It was a STUPID decision to go for it, period.

 

The point that was brought up about opening the playbook is a huge factor as well. They are much more one-dimensional when having to travel 70+ yards in less than two minutes.

 

 

Why is it that you evaluate Indy's offensive effectiveness on the entire game, but base the Patriots' on "their last few drives"? Would it be because the Patriots for the entire game had been far more effective than their last few drives might indicate, or because the Colts had been far more effective their last few drives than the entire game might indicate? Either way it's pretty convenient.

 

There doesn't need to be a 70% chance that Peyton leads them down to a TD, anything more than a 30-40% chance lends itself to going for it.

 

Ok, to use your "what have you done for me lately" statistics and based on the info that the KC Deuce so graciously provided...It sure looks to me like for the 2nd half possessions the Colts scored on 40% of the, and didn't score on 60%. In fact, it looks to me like Mannin was intercepted on 40% of the drives in the 2nd half. In fact

 

3rd QUARTER
Time	 Quarter Team	 Situation	 Play
12:06	 3rd	 NE	 1st & 10 at Ind33	 Interception
2:48	 3rd	 NE	 2nd & 2 at Ind2	 Fumble
4th QUARTER
14:23	 4th	 NE	 2nd & 5 at Ind5	 TOUCHDOWN
8:02	 4th	 NE	 4th & 10 at NE45	 Punt
4:17	 4th	 NE	 4th & 8 at Ind18	 FG

 

It sure seems to me that since the last 5 New England possessions had resulted in 1 punt, 1 interception, 1 fumble and whopping 10 pts, that it was much more of a gamble to put the ball in the hands of an offense scoring scoring at EXACTLY the same % as the Colts offense.

[parrot 789]

It sure seems to me that since the last 5 New England possessions had resulted in 1 punt, 1 interception, 1 fumble and whopping 10 pts, that it was much more of a gamble to put the ball in the hands of an offense scoring scoring at EXACTLY the same % as the Colts offense.

 

I guess I didn't realize the Patriots needed to score there. I though they just needed to get two yards (which they did, btw).

[Mackgee 0]

X

 

Just because every other puzzy coach in the history of the NFL says to punt, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. BB has balls, he's not worried about his job like most coaches, it was the right call.

 

I blame Maroney a lot more than I blame BB for the loss.

 

All I am saying is that when it happend, I wanted them to go for it, I'm not going to use hindsight and change what I said at the time.

 

Also, I wanted Grady Little to leave Pedro in back in 2003.

 

Barry Switzer made a similar call back in 1995 and was seriously blasted for it. They lost to the Eagles and won the Super Bowl.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

First, who the fock are you?

 

Second, yes, this is 100% on Bill Bellichick. He went for it on 4th and 2 on his own 28. He risked giving Peyton focking Manning, one of the greatest QB's of all time, 28 focking yards to beat him. I dont care what else happens. He made a terrible call at a crucial time

 

I am the guy telling you to

fock off, douche.

 

 

Who the fock are you?

 

Ohh you are some dumb as sh!t retread because you think the entire game rests on Bill's shoulders for that call. No need to answer dip-hole.

 

GFYourself for good measure.

[jgcrawfish 232]

I guess I didn't realize the Patriots needed to score there. I though they just needed to get two yards (which they did, btw).

 

No, your point was that you believe it to be a wiser decision to put the ball in the hands off an offense that hadn't been any more successful than the one who's hands you were trying to keep the ball out of. And my point is that, yes, the reward of getting that 1st down is most likely a win, however it doesn't compensate for the risk if you fail. Going back to what was said earlier. If Belicheat punts and the Colts go up the field and score, nobody is second guessing him for making Manning work for it. But he pretty much snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by handing it Peyton on a silver platter with the call he made there.

[jgcrawfish 232]

I am the guy telling you to

fock off, douche.

 

 

Who the fock are you?

 

Ohh you are some dumb as sh!t retread because you think the entire game rests on Bill's shoulders for that call. No need to answer dip-hole.

 

GFYourself for good measure.

 

And he blew 2 of his own team's timeouts with 3 minutes remaining AND called for a pass play at 2:08 left that failed and stopped the clock again. That's 6 stops of clock in the last 3 minutes (Pats timeout, Indy timeout, Indy timeout, Pats timeout, incomplete pass and 2 minute warning). All that and he called a play on 4th and 2 on his own 28 yrds that gained 1 1/2 yrds. NOW THAT'S GOOD COACHING RIGHT THERE!!! HTH.

 

[PsychoBelichickFan 0]

giving a top ten Qb all time in his prime with all the game momentum the ball you your 28 when he is down 6 points is insane. No excuse for the pats.......this was a stupid call. Kick the ball and force manning to drive 70 yards. give your D some room to work instead of bottling them up with no chance of success.

[MDC 7,417]

It was the wrong call and it would've been the wrong call even if they made it. 4th and 2 on the Colts' 30-35 and facing a long FG - okay. On your own 28? Err, no. Maybe if the Pats punt the Colts march right down the field and score anyway, but at least you're forcing them to play the clock. By handing the ball over to Indy on the 30, the Pats not only gave away the ball but they let the Colts take their time and drain the entire clock before scoring.

 

Stupidest call since Belichick went for it on 4th and 10 rather than attempt a long FG in the Super Bowl.