Bill blew it by punting in overtime

droopdog7

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
5,281

Let me ask fans something. When are you NOT thrilled when they punt on fourth and short? I’d say we’re almost always relieved so this is a trash litmus test.

And the reason we’re thrilled is because it puts control in our hands. We prefer that to the alternative pretty much every time.

Like you think Pats fans weren’t thrilled when we kicked on fourth and one twice at the end of the game? And we won the game anyway.
 
Last edited:

jterrell

Penguinite
Messages
33,428
Reaction score
15,606
The Pats would have not been in that game were it not for fluky plays and MM going for it on 4th down early in a goofball situation.
Dallas was a substantially better team.
Not sure it mattered what they did.
The Pats weren't exactly moving the ball well....
Going for it there would have essentially been a 1 play win or lose scenario.
Hoping for a bad snap, DAL penalty number 13 or whatever across a full series for Dallas was probably their best bet but it was all long odds.
 

aikemirv

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,211
Reaction score
9,713
Bill would have gone for it if Brady were his Qb. He knows what the limitations are. Not convert and it is worse than punting!
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
Indeed, I forgot to calculate the fg. I think that’s fair and accurate if you just thinking about the situation. They were at the 2 yard line with a chance to win the game and didn’t. Even with your math, there is a 38% chance they lose by going for it, which is not all that unlikely in general.

I think he could have saved himself the aggravation by kicking and I would say it also took guts.
But anyway, my main point here was posting about the original topic, which I think is less clear.
Unfortunately, I can't find any of the 4th-down calculators tackling the 4th-and-3. I'm sure it's out there but I don't want to grind through the math. I do know that I'd much rather try to get 3 yards on one play than resign myself to having to stop Dallas from driving into FG range (especially when failure to get the 3 yards just means that Dallas has to drive into FG range, albeit from closer in).

I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say, "he could have saved himself the aggravation by kicking." This is the main reason (not "gut feel" or "the specifics of this particular situation were different from the generic case") that NFL coaches have historically been incredibly conservative. The "by the book" moves don't maximize your chances of winning, but they do minimize the chances that you can be called an idiot. The bold moves maximize your chances of winning, but when they don't work, you'll get hammered for it by the media and the fans and eventually the owner might lose confidence and fire you. Nobody complains when you meekly punt or kick the FG in the 2nd quarter, and nobody connects the dots later when you lose by 3 points at the end of the game. But man, go for it on 4th and fail (which will happen a fair amount of the time) and it might be curtains for you. Coaches have two incentives: win, and don't get fired. They're mostly aligned, but not perfectly.

Finally: yes, there was a good chance they lose either way. That's what happens when it's late in the game, 4th down, and you're losing. Your chances aren't great no matter what you do. But shouldn't you maximize those chances?
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
Bill would have gone for it if Brady were his Qb. He knows what the limitations are. Not convert and it is worse than punting!
Sure. Not converting is worse than punting: that's why you have a decision to make. If not converting wasn't worse than punting, there's no debate.
Convert is really, really good. You keep the ball and have a good chance to win or at least go ahead.
Punt is pretty bad. You give up the ball without a fight but you do push Dallas back 30 yards.
Fail to convert is worse. You give up the ball and don't push them back 30 yards.

The argument is that converting is so much better than giving up the ball that it's worth gambling 30 yards of field position on that chance. And given that Dallas had gone on long drives on each of their last 4 possessions, and the NE defense wasn't going to be less tired in overtime, it seems to me to be an easy call.

Possession is everything in overtime.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
Let me ask fans something. When are you NOT thrilled when they punt on fourth and short? I’d say we’re almost always relieved so this is a trash litmus test.

And the reason we’re thrilled is because it puts control in our hands. We prefer that to the alternative pretty much every time.

Like you think Pats fans weren’t thrilled when we kicked on fourth and one twice at the end of the game? And we won the game anyway.
Yes! You're always thrilled when the other team punts. Why? Because possession is everything! Having the ball is incredibly valuable. Which is why you shouldn't give it up so easily.
 

droopdog7

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
5,281
Yes! You're always thrilled when the other team punts. Why? Because possession is everything! Having the ball is incredibly valuable. Which is why you shouldn't give it up so easily.
Possession may or may not be everything, but we certainly prefer it. There is an entire theory about locus of control, which makes us feel better but isn’t necessarily logical.

For instance, many are more nervous in a plane vs a car even though the plane is safer. And that’s because you feel in control in a car and not in a plane.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,685
Reaction score
27,237
When you have 4th and 3 in overtime, there's obviously no surefire way to win. And I'll pass on the appeals to authority, thanks. All you have to do is look around and see how much decision-making is finally changing after decades of recalcitrance to know that coaches didn't have some deeper knowledge driving these decisions. (Well, except the knowledge of how to keep their jobs, which I'll grant isn't an issue with Belichick).

I know I was thrilled when they chose to punt. I can't imagine why anyone would have felt differently. They're giving up the ball, for free, without a fight, in a sudden death situation? In what universe is that not fantastic?

You don't buy an appeal to the authority of the greatest coach of at least the current generation and instead rely on an appeal to emotion because something made you feel better?

Nice.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,685
Reaction score
27,237
Possession may or may not be everything, but we certainly prefer it. There is an entire theory about locus of control, which makes us feel better but isn’t necessarily logical.

For instance, many are more nervous in a plane vs a car even though the plane is safer. And that’s because you feel in control in a car and not in a plane.

Using how you feel in the emotion is romanticism. The idea that you can feel your way to the right answer is known as emotional intelligence. It is the basis of countless Ph. D. thesis and similar conclusions that show that it is nonsense. People want it to be true but its undeniably inaccurate.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,685
Reaction score
27,237
Your math is wrong. You're forgetting the possibility of kicking the FG after the successful sneak. If they don't score the TD in the 2 or 3 plays they have clock for, they'll kick it then and take it to OT.

I agree the sneak is about 80%. And I agree your 70% TD chance may be a little high. Eh, let's call it 60%.

So:
1. Kick the FG. Call it 100%. Go to OT. 50% chance to win. We agree.
2. Sneak. Fail. Lose. 0% chance.
3. Sneak. Succeed. Now there are three possible outcomes. Let's call them: (a) Score TD, 60%. (b) Screw up, 5% (Turnover, basically. They still were going to have a time out so there's virtually no chance the clock runs out on them). (c) Don't get TD, kick FG, go to overtime, 35%.
3a. TD. Win. 80% * 60% = 48% win chance.
3b. Screw up. Lose. 0% win chance.
3c. FG. 80% * 35% * 50% (OT) = 14% win chance.​

So your chance to win by sneaking is around 62%, not the 56% you calculated. And that's with a lower TD chance than you estimated.

Let's call this pulling numbers out of your ***.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,896
Reaction score
6,803
Sure. Not converting is worse than punting: that's why you have a decision to make. If not converting wasn't worse than punting, there's no debate.
Convert is really, really good. You keep the ball and have a good chance to win or at least go ahead.
Punt is pretty bad. You give up the ball without a fight but you do push Dallas back 30 yards.
Fail to convert is worse. You give up the ball and don't push them back 30 yards.

The argument is that converting is so much better than giving up the ball that it's worth gambling 30 yards of field position on that chance. And given that Dallas had gone on long drives on each of their last 4 possessions, and the NE defense wasn't going to be less tired in overtime, it seems to me to be an easy call.

Possession is everything in overtime.

I don't think they were expecting just a 34 yard or less punt in that situation. I think in that situation they are planning for 40 yards or more of field position. Sure if they think they can only gain a 30 yard flip in field position, then they may change what they do. They were hoping for more than just a 34 yard punt and pinning Dallas deeper than the 20 yard line.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,685
Reaction score
27,237
I don't think they were expecting just a 34 yard or less punt in that situation. I think in that situation they are planning for 40 yards or more of field position. Sure if they think they can only gain a 30 yard flip in field position, then they may change what they do. They were hoping for more than just a 34 yard punt and pinning Dallas deeper than the 20 yard line.

Yeah if you think that punting from their 46 their goal was a touchback then you are delusional. The failure to execute the punt was bigger than the decision to punt.
 

Creeper

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,834
Reaction score
17,539
The Patriots averaged 10.9 yards per pass attempt today (this stat excludes sacks)
The Patriots averaged 4.4 yards per rush attempt

So what did Belichick do in overtime needing just 3 yards with the Pats at their own 46?

He did what other traditional dinosaur coaches do: punted. Surrendered the ball for 34 yards of field, which wasn't likely to matter to the Cowboys offense, which gobbled up 567 yards on the day.

The sport is getting smarter. People like Bill...are not.

I don't think it was that bad of a decision. Going for it might have been the better choice against the Cowboys defense but no matter what NE averaged there was no guarantee they get the 1st down there. I think if it was 4th and 2 or 4th and 1 from the same position on the field he goes for it. 4th and 3 just makes it a little bit harder. If the NE punter had pinned Dallas inside the 10 yard line where the Cowboys would be more prone to run the football maybe the game would have turned out differently. I think Belichick was expecting a better result from the punt.

The thing is, if NE doesn't make it then Dallas only needs a couple of plays to get in FG range to win the game. NE needed a TD to ensure they win.
 

aikemirv

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,211
Reaction score
9,713
Sure. Not converting is worse than punting: that's why you have a decision to make. If not converting wasn't worse than punting, there's no debate.
Convert is really, really good. You keep the ball and have a good chance to win or at least go ahead.
Punt is pretty bad. You give up the ball without a fight but you do push Dallas back 30 yards.
Fail to convert is worse. You give up the ball and don't push them back 30 yards.

The argument is that converting is so much better than giving up the ball that it's worth gambling 30 yards of field position on that chance. And given that Dallas had gone on long drives on each of their last 4 possessions, and the NE defense wasn't going to be less tired in overtime, it seems to me to be an easy call.

Possession is everything in overtime.
NE was 3-9 on 3rd down efficiency for the game. We were 3-13 so I think Bill thought he had a chance (5-17 for 3rd and 4th). According to that 3rd down efficiency his D had a better chance getting off the field on 3rd down than ours. It was a sound decision.
 

droopdog7

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
5,281
Using how you feel in the emotion is romanticism. The idea that you can feel your way to the right answer is known as emotional intelligence. It is the basis of countless Ph. D. thesis and similar conclusions that show that it is nonsense. People want it to be true but its undeniably inaccurate.
Unfortunately I am not getting your point, but mine was correcting the initial post where they seemed to conclude that possession is always better (which is not NECESSARILY true). I was merely stating that being in control feels better.

As to emotional intelligence, sure, I know the area.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,896
Reaction score
6,803
Yeah if you think that punting from their 46 their goal was a touchback then you are delusional. The failure to execute the punt was bigger than the decision to punt.

I don't think anyone's goal is for a touchback in that situation. Heck, if they do get a touchback, it puts Dallas at the 20, which is where they started anyway. I do think it is reasonable to expect a better punt than one of just 34 yards. A failure to execute the punt is a good description as to what occurred. The decision to punt is not made with that level of execution in mind.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,685
Reaction score
27,237
Unfortunately I am not getting your point, but mine was correcting the initial post where they seemed to conclude that possession is always better (which is not NECESSARILY true). I was merely stating that being in control feels better.

As to emotional intelligence, sure, I know the area.

I was trying to support what you were saying not argue it.
 
Top