Bill Belichick is a moron...

[JVita17]

20% beside the fact that Manning had already led a 79 yard, 5 play drive in 2:04 with no time outs earlier in the quarter? AND a 6 play 79 yard drive in 1:49 in the SAME 4th quarter? Their offense was rolling, no way was their chance of scoring 20%.

More like 20% they wouldnt score

 

[Rogah]

The numbers are out there. Folks at the Football Outsiders discussion looked them up, and they basically say that, on average, you should go for it if you have a 60-70% chance of making it. I would argue that this situation was not the average: both offenses were better than the defenses they were facing, which means the Patriots have a better chance of converting and the Colts have a better chance of driving down the field for the TD. Which skews things even more in favor of going for it.

I agree the situation was not the average because of the time left in the game. I am familiar with the numbers you are referencing and they are clear when they say that those numbers apply to regular game situations, not to 2:00 drills with Peyton Manning at QB indoors or certain situational circumstances.

Their data is based on the stat that historically a team wins 53% of the time from the 30. Sorry, but with Peyton Manning, the real number is going to be higher.

 

[kmd24]

Or when someone posts numbers that are pulled just completely out of nowhere with absolutely no supporting evidence. With all due respect, your supporting evidence is pretty weak too. As I said above, your numbers are just figures you pulled out of nowhere but expect us to treat them like mathematical certainties.

They weren't pulled out of nowhere. In fact, I inflated the chance that the Colts would score from the 29 just to add support to punting the ball. I merely wanted to suggest that there might be another way to look at it.

I think that from 30 yards away there is a 90% chance of Manning scoring a touchdown because the clock will not be a factor - in fact we saw the Colts were deliberately slowing down. But from 75 yards away the clock is much more of a factor, so they have about a 20% chance of scoring. Using my numbers, they need to convert 78% of the time for it to be a break even decision. Punting is the right decision in that case.

I respect that analysis more than someone just saying carte blanche that the correct decision is to punt.

The decision is most sensitive to the probability you assign to the Colts scoring after a punt. If the probability is high (50%), then you should go for it if you think your chance to convert is better than 50%, no matter if it is a 100% certainty that the Colts would score from the 29 after a failed attempt. That's why I listed Manning's 4th quarter success as a factor in my first post in the thread, upon which I was told (not by you) that it didn't matter how well the Colts were moving the ball.

The numbers are just to give a concrete example to explain the logic. If you disagree with them, great, use whatever numbers you think are correct. In the end, that's what Belichick did.

 

[Temo]

I agree the situation was not the average because of the time left in the game. I am familiar with the numbers you are referencing and they are clear when they say that those numbers apply to regular game situations, not to 2:00 drills with Peyton Manning at QB indoors or certain situational circumstances.

Their data is based on the stat that historically a team wins 53% of the time from the 30. Sorry, but with Peyton Manning, the real number is going to be higher.

53% is the historical percentage, but you can increase that % and still make it a good decision. Here are the break even points (whether to go for it or not) based on various probability to score, based on a 60% chance to convert on 4th and 2 (about the league average rate in that situation):

28 yds 68 yds

90% 36%
85% 34%
80% 32%
75% 30%
70% 28%
65% 26%
60% 24%
55% 22%
50% 20%
45% 18%
40% 16%
35% 14%
30% 12%
25% 10%

 

[Danny White]

The problem wasn't simply the call, it was the clock management leading up to it. Passing on 3rd when running would have run you down to the 2:00 warning or made Indy burn their last TO.

Also, the Patriots burning their timeouts, leaving them with no way to slow the clock if Indy scores.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The problem wasn't simply the call, it was the clock management leading up to it. Passing on 3rd when running would have run you down to the 2:00 warning or made Indy burn their last TO.

Also, the Patriots burning their timeouts, leaving them with no way to slow the clock if Indy scores.

I agree with all of this except for the word "simply".

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Switzer was an idiot.

so then Mumbles must also be an idiot

remember, both have SBs so you cannot use that argument against Switzer. He also has national titles in college. His pedigree is almost as good as Mumbles'.

 

[Vtwin]

What he should have done is faked a punt.

Just send the punt team right out showing no indecision. Colts "probably" set up the return looking for the best field position they can get. Take your shot at the fake punt.

At the very least you have the element of surprise working for you.


I personally would have punted it away.

I do have to laugh at alll the statistics and break even points and all that crap being thown around. None of that stuff matters when it's time to make the call. The only thing that matters is the situation in this specific game and the specific teams/players on the field when the decision is made.

 

[NextGenBoys]

LOL. This thread is hilarious.

If Kevin Faulk did his usual, and catches that ball cleanly, the Pats convert that and they win the game. Then I guess he'd have been an absolutely all guts, no fear, genius this morning.

Once again, it's about execution, not coaching.

 

[kmd24]

I do have to laugh at alll the statistics and break even points and all that crap being thown around. None of that stuff matters when it's time to make the call. The only thing that matters is the situation in this specific game and the specific teams/players on the field when the decision is made.

It's not like anyone saying anything about the statistics is ignoring any of that, but the "punt it away" crowd is definitely ignoring the fact that the Colts had scored from 79 yards out TWICE in the fourth quarter. One drive took 2:04 and the other took 1:49, and neither required any timeouts.

I think a lot of people just get angry when math and logic refute the conventional wisdom, and then resort to saying that it doesn't matter.

 

[Temo]

It's not like anyone saying anything about the statistics is ignoring any of that, but the "punt it away" crowd is definitely ignoring the fact that the Colts had scored from 79 yards out TWICE in the fourth quarter. One drive took 2:04 and the other took 1:49, and neither required any timeouts.

I think a lot of people just get angry when math and logic refute the conventional wisdom, and then resort to saying that it doesn't matter.

This.

 

[Vtwin]

It's not like anyone saying anything about the statistics is ignoring any of that, but the "punt it away" crowd is definitely ignoring the fact that the Colts had scored from 79 yards out TWICE in the fourth quarter. One drive took 2:04 and the other took 1:49, and neither required any timeouts.

I think a lot of people just get angry when math and logic refute the conventional wisdom, and then resort to saying that it doesn't matter.

Well I'm not "resorting" to anything.

There is plenty of logic to support the decision going either way. I can fully appreciate the "lets keep the ball away from Manning" side just as much as I can appreciate the "lets make Manning have to go as far as we can" side.

Math doesn't enter into it all though. It makes absolutely NO difference who and how many converted this or scored from there in prior games/seasons at that time in that game. This game actually proves that to be true. According to the numbers, Bill made the right call? Then why did he lose the game?

It would be very curious to see what happend if you could put all NFL head coaches in some sort of virtual reality deal where they had to make that exact same decison in the exact same circumstance.

I wonder what kind of math would come from that.

 

[AmishCowboy]

Switzer was an idiot.

We had the All time leading Rusher and one of the best O-lines ever, if we can't make a yard on Two straight plays we didn't deserve to win, I don't like Barry at all but I had no problem with this.

 

[Temo]

Math doesn't enter into it all though. It makes absolutely NO difference who and how many converted this or scored from there in prior games/seasons at that time in that game. This game actually proves that to be true. According to the numbers, Bill made the right call? Then why did he lose the game?

Next thing you know, you're going say that if a kicker misses an XP, they should have gone for two.

 

[Vtwin]

Next thing you know, you're going say that if a kicker misses an XP, they should have gone for two.

Is that what the stats say I'm going to say?


Horrible analogy by the way.

 

[Temo]

Is that what the stats say I'm going to say?


Horrible analogy by the way.

Well, I'm not the one that said probabilities don't matter. Why do people go for the XP when the 2 point conversion scores more points?

 

[AdamJT13]

According to the numbers, Bill made the right call? Then why did he lose the game?

Because the right call doesn't guarantee a victory. If he makes that decision, he'd win about 79 percent of the time (according to one statistical analysis). So even by making the "right" call, he still loses 21 percent of the time. But that's better than making the "wrong" call and losing more than 21 percent of the time.

 

[kmd24]

Math doesn't enter into it all though.

The math is there whether you use it to decide or not. There is certainly room to argue the likelihood of each scenario (which is the make-or-break of skillful decision making). IMO, that's why the breakeven discussion is useful.

It makes absolutely NO difference who and how many converted this or scored from there in prior games/seasons at that time in that game.

It's just useful for getting a handle on the percentages. I think most coaches are aware of percentages and use them in decision-making, even if you think they are useless.

This game actually proves that to be true. According to the numbers, Bill made the right call? Then why did he lose the game?

The right call is the one that maximizes the likelihood of winning. It doesn't necessarily guarantee winning.

 

[joseephuss]

Is the math here supposed to be used to predict what is going to happen or is the math used as a summation of what has happened in the past? You are allowed to interpolate between data points in most cases, but you are rarely allowed to extrapolate out from a data point. This to me is similar. I think it is poor use of this math to think that it will truly predicate what may happen. There is a fine line between the two and in these tense situations I would not rely on these numbers at all for a high risk gamble.

 

[The Great Number 8]

Because the right call doesn't guarantee a victory. If he makes that decision, he'd win about 79 percent of the time (according to one statistical analysis). So even by making the "right" call, he still loses 21 percent of the time. But that's better than making the "wrong" call and losing more than 21 percent of the time.

I get the decision to go for it because you don't think you can stop the Colts. But if you have that little faith in your defense, isn't the next move after you fail to convert is let the Colts have a TD on the first play? You might as well give your offense 1:40+ to go down the field to kick the field goal.