Bill blew it by punting in overtime

[JustChip]

McCarthy should have punted during our Cowboys 1st series where it was 4th & 1 inside our own 35. It gifted the Patriots an easy 7 points. Maybe McCarthy's terrible "analytics" game management scared Belichick into punting?

I thought we should’ve punter and would’ve had I been the coach. We’re a better team and there’s no reason to give an inferior team an opportunity to believe and get momentum.

That said, I had no problem going for it. We had an entire game to overcome that which the better team should.

Frankly, I was surprised BB didn’t go for it in OT. I expected them to and to pick it up.

 

[nightrain]

Buffalo coach just went for it and looks like a jacka**

I know. I guess we can add him to the scrap heap of NFL Coaches who don't have the 20-20 skills and intuition of our intrepid zone folk.

 

[Captain43Crash]

Playing for OT when you need an inch inside the 5yd line is for losers. If you can't get an inch, you deserve to lose. Especially with a QB like Allen.

Allen slips or makes the 1st down.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Well, it is obvious that going for it on 4th and 3 at your own 46 is not a sure fire way to win.

The only argument that I have seen for going for it is that it was "relieving when they came out to punt." That is prima facie nonsense.

The reality is that there is a lot of uncertainty and personally I am comfortable with assuming that Bill Belichick has a better idea of "the way the game was going" than a bunch of message board romantics.

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?

 

[JD_KaPow]

What is this data you keep talking about? The fact that they make it (supposedly) 60% of the time? That’s your data? Because if that’s it, it’s woefully incomplete. I mean, woefully incomplete.

And yes, you indeed are the fan that’s reacting to something that didn’t work. The pats punted and lost and you’re the casual fan (which i guess means we’re not as smart as you) that’s reacting with made up data.

60% is a massive underestimate. And no, there's no magical situational data out there that would make that estimate go the other way. Allen has been extremely good at sneaks, the Titans DL doesn't have some formula to stopping them.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I agree. this was even worse. they were on the 5, kick a field goal and go to over time....they went for it and it failed.....the question is can you afford an L even if there is a 10% chance of not making the yard......the cost is too much. it puts them behind in the conference for home field despite many games left......

Wait a minute. You're saying that you would kick and play for overtime even if you had a 90% chance of making it? You do realize that overtime is only a 50-50 proposition, right? So you'd give up a 90% chance of 1st-and-goal from the 2 (you can still kick the FG if you don't punch it in in the next couple plays) for the 50% chance of overtime? Seriously?

 

[JD_KaPow]

Buffalo coach just went for it and looks like a jacka**

To who? It was obviously the right call.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The strangest part of all this discussion is that there are two incredibly common refrains I see in this group, and it's jarring to see them from the same people.

1. The Cowboys are too soft, they need to toughen up. They need to take it to the other team, have a killer instinct, go for blood.
2. Trying to get one yard is way too scary. What happens if we fail? Much better to give the ball away for free without a fight, and live for another day.

 

[Plankton]

It's highly ironic that Bill Belichick of all people took a knee to run out the end of regulation play, and also punted on 4th and 3 from his own 46 to allow the opposing team an opportunity to close him out - opposition who had only punted once in the game.

This is the same Belichick who won his first Super Bowl by not taking a knee late as John Madden stated he should on the broadcast. The same Belichick who went for it on 4th and 1 from his own 29 against the Colts because he trusted his offense more than his defense. To me, there's no defending his choice. He didn't give his team the best chance to win.

 

[droopdog7]

60% is a massive underestimate. And no, there's no magical situational data out there that would make that estimate go the other way. Allen has been extremely good at sneaks, the Titans DL doesn't have some formula to stopping them.

So lay it out then. What do you mean by a massive understatement? That the chances of making it on 4th and 3 are much higher? Show me, because what little data I found says otherwise. I way otherwise.

Anyway, you also have to factor in the specific situation, which is unlike your normal one. Don't give me average points as the decider because that may not apply so easily here. For instance, lets make up some numbers.

Let's say the odds of making a first down are 60% on 4th and 3 (though I think they are lower). From there, what are the odds that the Pats make a td (which is what they need to win in this specific situation)? 40%? Does that seem too high? Too low? Seems about right to me. So with these made up numbers, the odds of them winning the game by going for it are (0.6 x 0.4 = 0.24), or 24%. If you say they have a 50% chance of winning the game, then they are at 30%.

Now what if they go and don't make it? My (made up) model says there is a 40% chance they don't make it (which again, I think is low). Now if they don't make it, what are the odds that the cowboys score? Is 80% too high? What about 90%? If you assume 80%, they have a 32% of winning the game. With 90% it's 36%. If you go to 70% you're at 28%.

So obviously I'm just pulling numbers out of my arse. And, I have not factored in the possibility that the pats kick a FG. But if you want to keep claiming analytics, then show your work. And then let me determine how it applies to this specific situation.

 

[blueblood70]

It's highly ironic that Bill Belichick of all people took a knee to run out the end of the game, and also punted on 4th and 3 from his own 46 to allow the opposing team an opportunity to close him out - opposition who had only punted once in the game.

This is the same Belichick who won his first Super Bowl by not taking a knee late as John Madden stated he should on the broadcast. The same Belichick who went for it on 4th and 1 from his own 29 against the Colts because he trusted his offense more than his defense. To me, there's no defending his choice. He didn't give his team the best chance to win.

a few games ago he elected going for 56 yard FG in the pouring rain with gimpy kicker vs 4th and 3..

last night the bills lost over analytics so you are damned if you do and damned if you dont..

all the flack MM gets hes does little of both, new school vs old..

I wanted Pederson do this for the eagles LOAN SB win in 17 all year he did crazy things and Staley doing it this year with the chargers..

get used to it this is the NFL now as we speak..

 

[droopdog7]

To who? It was obviously the right call.

I will say this; I was going against the bills kicker up 19 points, which seemed insurmountable. Had they kicked and then kicked another in OT I would have lost. This is after being up 36 points going against Lamar last week (and losing).

So to that I say, heck yeah it was the right call. Talk about being relieved.

 

[JD_KaPow]

So lay it out then. What do you mean by a massive understatement? That the chances of making it on 4th and 3 are much higher? Show me, because what little data I found says otherwise. I way otherwise.

Anyway, you also have to factor in the specific situation, which is unlike your normal one. Don't give me average points as the decider because that may not apply so easily here. For instance, lets make up some numbers.

Let's say the odds of making a first down are 60% on 4th and 3 (though I think they are lower). From there, what are the odds that the Pats make a td (which is what they need to win in this specific situation)? 40%? Does that seem too high? Too low? Seems about right to me. So with these made up numbers, the odds of them winning the game by going for it are (0.6 x 0.4 = 0.24), or 24%. If you say they have a 50% chance of winning the game, then they are at 30%.

Now what if they go and don't make it? My (made up) model says there is a 40% chance they don't make it (which again, I think is low). Now if they don't make it, what are the odds that the cowboys score? Is 80% too high? What about 90%? If you assume 80%, they have a 32% of winning the game. With 90% it's 36%. If you go to 70% you're at 28%.

So obviously I'm just pulling numbers out of my arse. And, I have not factored in the possibility that the pats kick a FG. But if you want to keep claiming analytics, then show your work. And then let me determine how it applies to this specific situation.

What are you talking about? The 60% was about Allen's sneak last night. Didn't read the rest.

 

[droopdog7]

What are you talking about? The 60% was about Allen's sneak last night. Didn't read the rest.

I'm still talking about bill. And read my other post about the sneak.

 

[TNCowboy]

OP may be right that BB should have gone for it, but he's wrong in calling him a dinosaur.

I recall maybe 12-15 years ago, Pats had the ball at their own 29, 4th and 1, playing at Indy, only a couple of minutes left. They go for it, Brady completes a pass, but the receiver is stopped short of the stick. Of course, Manning then comes in and leads Indy to a TD and the win. BB caught hell from media types all week long, but his simple explanation was he didn't believe he D could stop Manning, the only way he thought he could win was keeping the ball away from him.

So no, BB isn't a dino, if anything, he's been ahead of his time. He just thought - erroneously - that his D could hang on. Or more likely, given how the day went, he figured that with that much field in front of them, the Cowboys would continue to make mistakes and screw themselves out of a chance to win.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Wait a minute. You're saying that you would kick and play for overtime even if you had a 90% chance of making it? You do realize that overtime is only a 50-50 proposition, right? So you'd give up a 90% chance of 1st-and-goal from the 2 (you can still kick the FG if you don't punch it in in the next couple plays) for the 50% chance of overtime? Seriously?

at that point in the game, with everything on the line, I would kick it and go to over time. yeah, call me garrett

 

[droopdog7]

What are you talking about? The 60% was about Allen's sneak last night. Didn't read the rest.

But for these stats, let's say the odds of making it on the sneak are like, 90%, even though I don't think it's that high. Lately, sneaks have been stopped a lot more than they used to be. They would have called a TO and had something less than 20 seconds left in the game. Maybe

What are you talking about? The 60% was about Allen's sneak last night. Didn't read the rest.

So we're probably going to disagree on the actual percentages. I say making it on the sneak is about 80%. Making a td from there only throwing the ball with say, two plays, and not getting sacked or caught inbounds is about 70% (and that may be high). So overall, we're looking at about 56% to win.

Kicking right there is basically a 100% to make and go to OT with about 50% chance to win. So yeah, my math says going for it was slightly the right choice, but you can see that it's pretty close. ***** the numbers down and it would be even or the wrong choice.

Of course, it he kicks and goes to OT, no one is yelling at him right now. But that's besides the point. What isn't besides the point is that we don't have the actual odds. But I'm trying to make this as fair as possible.

 

[JD_KaPow]

But for these stats, let's say the odds of making it on the sneak are like, 90%, even though I don't think it's that high. Lately, sneaks have been stopped a lot more than they used to be. They would have called a TO and had something less than 20 seconds left in the game. Maybe

So we're probably going to disagree on the actual percentages. I say making it on the sneak is about 80%. Making a td from there only throwing the ball with say, two plays, and not getting sacked or caught inbounds is about 70% (and that may be high). So overall, we're looking at about 56% to win.

Kicking right there is basically a 100% to make and go to OT with about 50% chance to win. So yeah, my math says going for it was slightly the right choice, but you can see that it's pretty close. ***** the numbers down and it would be even or the wrong choice.

Of course, it he kicks and goes to OT, no one is yelling at him right now. But that's besides the point. What isn't besides the point is that we don't have the actual odds. But I'm trying to make this as fair as possible.

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.

 

[JD_KaPow]

OP may be right that BB should have gone for it, but he's wrong in calling him a dinosaur.

I recall maybe 12-15 years ago, Pats had the ball at their own 29, 4th and 1, playing at Indy, only a couple of minutes left. They go for it, Brady completes a pass, but the receiver is stopped short of the stick. Of course, Manning then comes in and leads Indy to a TD and the win. BB caught hell from media types all week long, but his simple explanation was he didn't believe he D could stop Manning, the only way he thought he could win was keeping the ball away from him.

So no, BB isn't a dino, if anything, he's been ahead of his time. He just thought - erroneously - that his D could hang on. Or more likely, given how the day went, he figured that with that much field in front of them, the Cowboys would continue to make mistakes and screw themselves out of a chance to win.

Aaron Schatz over at Football Outsiders is a Patriot fan. His claim is that sometime around 2012, Bill became significantly more conservative. He has no explanation for why. It wasn't the play your talking about that did it--the timing doesn't correspond.

 

[droopdog7]

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.

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.