Jump to content

Patriots-Colts SNF


124
 Share

Recommended Posts

Imo, the decision to go for that on 4th and short was a good one. The mistakes were:

1) The play calls (should've ran a bit longer of a route imo) Also, and as much as I like the idea of putting the ball in Brady's hands 2x with the game on the line, I'd think 2 running plays gets the job done there. (Much like the 2006 playoff game, Brady failed to ice a game in Indy)

2) Wasting of the timeouts that lead them to not be able to challange the Faulk play

3) Not instructing his defense to let them score should someone be running free within the 5

Actually, Brady should be getting killed this morning for burning that TO in the huddle at the beginning of that possession. What the hell happened there?

And where the hell is Garb and PFSIKH and PR37 and Sneezy and Doc and the rest of the Katzenjammer Kids this morning?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Brady should be getting killed this morning for burning that TO in the huddle at the beginning of that possession. What the hell happened there?

And where the hell is Garb and PFSIKH and PR37 and Sneezy and Doc and the rest of the Katzenjammer Kids this morning?"

Yup awful timeout there, and Brady failed 2x to pick up 2 yards. Brady failed big time at the end and all Belichicks call did was hide that fact from those that only skim the surface

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I hate Belichick, and hindsight says it was a bad move, I think I actually agree with CTM on the fact that this was the right move, and that if Belichick finds himself in a similar situation in the future, he should make it again. The benefit outweighs the risk. If Faulk doesn't juggle that catch, we wouldn't be saying "dumb move".

Here's an article that talks about "innovators" in football....its awesome. It touches on what we're discussing here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=klosterman/091019

Check out this quote:

Even more radical are mathematical minds like Kevin Kelley of Pulaski Academy in Arkansas, a high school coach who went 13-1 and won the Arkansas 5A title in 2007 by never punting the football all season, even when his team was pinned inside its own ten-yard line. All of Kelley's in-game decisions are considered from a risk-reward standpoint, exclusively viewed through statistical probability; he has concluded that the upside of working with an extra play on every set of downs is greater than the risk of surrendering thirty-five yards of field possession on every change of possession.

His numeric strategy is also applied to kickoffs -- Pulaski onside kicks about 75percent of the time. Despite their success, just about everyone who watches Pulaski Academy play still thinks they're joking. "You can just tell people are in the stands thinking, 'You're an idiot,'" Kelley said after winning the championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I hate Belichick, and hindsight says it was a bad move, I think I actually agree with CTM on the fact that this was the right move, and that if Belichick finds himself in a similar situation in the future, he should make it again. The benefit outweighs the risk. If Faulk doesn't juggle that catch, we wouldn't be saying "dumb move".

Here's an article that talks about "innovators" in football....its awesome. It touches on what we're discussing here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=klosterman/091019

Check out this quote:

Even more radical are mathematical minds like Kevin Kelley of Pulaski Academy in Arkansas, a high school coach who went 13-1 and won the Arkansas 5A title in 2007 by never punting the football all season, even when his team was pinned inside its own ten-yard line. All of Kelley's in-game decisions are considered from a risk-reward standpoint, exclusively viewed through statistical probability; he has concluded that the upside of working with an extra play on every set of downs is greater than the risk of surrendering thirty-five yards of field possession on every change of possession.

His numeric strategy is also applied to kickoffs -- Pulaski onside kicks about 75percent of the time. Despite their success, just about everyone who watches Pulaski Academy play still thinks they're joking. "You can just tell people are in the stands thinking, 'You're an idiot,'" Kelley said after winning the championship.

Yup.. I'm interested to see what TMQ has to say about this. He has for years admonished teams for punting on 4th down on the opposing teams side of the field, I'm curious how he'll react to this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup.. I'm interested to see what TMQ has to say about this. He has for years admonished teams for punting on 4th down on the opposing teams side of the field, I'm curious how he'll react to this

I've read about Kevin Kelley elsewhere and it's a great theory based on sound statistical analysis.

Kelley has the benefit of being a good play caller, though.

That's the key to all this. The decision to go for it is 2 fold (as you noted). There is the decision to go for it & the play to call.

Belichick is calling the plays now and it's not his strong suit. Yes, the Pats are scoring alot, but it's like being Phil Jackson with Michael Jordan in crunch time: "Hey, Mike, make a shot." Belichick is relying heavily on Brady to execute what Belichick tells him & the play called could be the wrong one.

I'm all for advocating never to punt. But if Brian Schottenheimer is my OC, I'm punting every chance I get because I don't have the faith in him to make the right play selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late to drop in on this one and I hate to seem to always be in agreement with Chan on these percentage calls, but I think it was a good decision.

IMO, the odds of Manning scoring from his own 35 (and that's giving the Pats a 42-yd net on the punt) with 2 minutes to go are greater than the odds of the Pats failing to convert that 4th down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html

Here's what advanced nfl stats say about the call... It was the right call..

Based on your quoted analysis, Belichick increased his WP by 0.09 or 9% by going for it on 4th & 2.

Even seeing those numbers, I doubt anybody but Belichick would be willing to go for it with a 9% statistical advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on your quoted analysis, Belichick increased his WP by 0.09 or 9% by going for it on 4th & 2.

Even seeing those numbers, I doubt anybody but Belichick would be willing to go for it with a 9% statistical advantage.

Thos numbers are league wide averages. Against Manning those odds improve in Belichicks favor as the author states.

And a 12.5% increase in win percentage is a big deal.

All i know is that if I was a Pats fan, I would've thought that was my best chance of winning. Kicking to manning there was an autoloss imo..

I'd love to see him faced with a similiar decision in the playoffs though, having the stones to do that with the season on the line is much different..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious how many people would be in here bashing Belichick if they had converted and were able to run out the clock without giving Manning a reasonable chance to drive for the winning score...

I can't stand results-oriented analysis...

He would've been labeled a genius, but personally I still would've thought it was a stupid call. I thought it was moronic the second it became clear they were going for it, which was even before they got the break for the 2 minute warning.

While simply saying "you have to punt there" without any analysis may be too narrow-minded, preaching straight statistics in a vacuum without analyzing the game situation is just as wrong on the opposite end of the spectrum. The Colts defense had clearly stepped up in that 4th quarter and were giving the Patriots and particularly Brady, a good bit of a trouble. Also consider that Manning was all over the place last night and looked pretty rattled at times by the Patriots defense. The guy had just thrown an awful pick (his second of the night) just two possessions earlier. The defense wasn't stopping them every time, but this is the Colts and Peyton Manning we're talking about and all things considered, they had held up fairly well. Meanwhile, the Patriots offense just looked out of gas. This wasn't a case of the offense playing well and a slip-up put them in this 4th down situation, they had run a total of 3 plays on the drive and netted 8 yards. Not to mention this was preceded by a few other unimpressive outings from the offense as well. Now when you factor in the play selection, I just can't agree with the call at all.

And frankly, even if Faulk catches the ball cleanly and is marked for the first down, it wouldn't change my mind. Only difference is my reaction would be that the Patriots got lucky that a dumb decision didn't just cost them the game. But this time, it caught up with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He would've been labeled a genius, but personally I still would've thought it was a stupid call. I thought it was moronic the second it became clear they were going for it, which was even before they got the break for the 2 minute warning.

While simply saying "you have to punt there" without any analysis may be too narrow-minded, preaching straight statistics in a vacuum without analyzing the game situation is just as wrong on the opposite end of the spectrum. The Colts defense had clearly stepped up in that 4th quarter and were giving the Patriots and particularly Brady, a good bit of a trouble. Also consider that Manning was all over the place last night and looked pretty rattled at times by the Patriots defense. The guy had just thrown an awful pick (his second of the night) just two possessions earlier. The defense wasn't stopping them every time, but this is the Colts and Peyton Manning we're talking about and all things considered, they had held up fairly well. Meanwhile, the Patriots offense just looked out of gas. This wasn't a case of the offense playing well and a slip-up put them in this 4th down situation, they had run a total of 3 plays on the drive and netted 8 yards. Not to mention this was preceded by a few other unimpressive outings from the offense as well. Now when you factor in the play selection, I just can't agree with the call at all.

And frankly, even if Faulk catches the ball cleanly and is marked for the first down, it wouldn't change my mind. Only difference is my reaction would be that the Patriots got lucky that a dumb decision didn't just cost them the game. But this time, it caught up with them.

And the other 4th quarter drives which you are neglecting to mention, Manning had went 79 yards 2 times in 5 and 6 plays respectively.

The "bad" interception was nothing more then a misscommunication with Wayne, something that is highly unlikely to happen 2x in a quarter.

Further, you are ignoring the ultimate game situation. Getting an extra 35 yards of field against a guy who is arguably the goat at his position isn't as valuable as you think it is. Not to metion that Belichick has his own HOF QB that coudl've won the game outright by completeing a 2 yard pass in what should've been your best play.

Edited by CTM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thos numbers are league wide averages. Against Manning those odds improve in Belichicks favor as the author states.

And a 12.5% increase in win percentage is a big deal.

You know you screwed up, right?

The odds don't improve in Belichick's favor with Manning. The odds change on BOTH ends.

The odds of winning for the Pats may decrease from 70% after a punt because of Manning. But the odds of Manning scoring from the 30 increases from 53% the league average.

Get it?

Under the formula it is

(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP

The bolded number will increase (the success rate of the opponent scoring a TD from the 30) which would DECREASE the 0.79 WP.

Belichick would never get a 12.5% WP increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a calc someone put together to play with number, imo, you have to get pretty creative to sku the numbers towards bad call..

I used an ultra favorable 50% chance of picking up 2 yards, 95% chance of scoring from the 30 and 50% chance of scoring from their own 30, and it still came out as a good call statistically..

My best guesses would 60% of making it, 95% of Colts scoring from the Pats 30 and 75% scoring from the Colts 30, meaning it was an overwhelmingly good call in my book.. (62% chance of winning by going for it, 25% chance by punting)

http://belichick-decision.heroku.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a calc someone put together to play with number, imo, you have to get pretty creative to sku the numbers towards bad call..

I used an ultra favorable 50% chance of picking up 2 yards, 95% chance of scoring from the 30 and 50% chance of scoring from their own 30, and it still came out as a good call statistically..

My best guesses would 60% of making it, 95% of Colts scoring from the Pats 30 and 75% scoring from the Colts 30, meaning it was an overwhelmingly good call in my book.. (62% chance of winning by going for it, 25% chance by punting)

http://belichick-decision.heroku.com/

Way to suck the life out of football poindexter. :Nuts:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a calc someone put together to play with number, imo, you have to get pretty creative to sku the numbers towards bad call..

I used an ultra favorable 50% chance of picking up 2 yards, 95% chance of scoring from the 30 and 50% chance of scoring from their own 30, and it still came out as a good call statistically..

My best guesses would 60% of making it, 95% of Colts scoring from the Pats 30 and 75% scoring from the Colts 30, meaning it was an overwhelmingly good call in my book.. (62% chance of winning by going for it, 25% chance by punting)

http://belichick-decision.heroku.com/

with your logic why would the pats ever punt on anything 4th and 2, they are so

good, it is a sure thing, they have welker the HOF yakker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty cut and dry in my book as Belichick gambled and lost.

Here is what he said today in his presser:

"It's the same thing I said after the game: I thought it was our best chance to win. I thought we needed to make that one play and then we could basically run out the clock. And, we weren't able to make it."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know you screwed up, right?

The odds don't improve in Belichick's favor with Manning. The odds change on BOTH ends.

The odds of winning for the Pats may decrease from 70% after a punt because of Manning. But the odds of Manning scoring from the 30 increases from 53% the league average.

Get it?

Under the formula it is

(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP

The bolded number will increase (the success rate of the opponent scoring a TD from the 30) which would DECREASE the 0.79 WP.

Belichick would never get a 12.5% WP increase.

First off, increasing from 70 to 79 is a 12.5% WP increase, i was using the quoted numbers

Secondly, while you are correct, the 1 first scenarios WP will decrease slightly with a Manning factor, what you are missing is the punting WP will decrease much more sharply, leaving a net benefit in favor of going for it..

For simplicity, lets say Manning is 50% better on both fronts (although imo the increase wouldn't be equiviliant as moving between the 30's is the easiest part of the 2 minute drill)

so:

(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.795)) = .682

And our WP for the punt goes from .70 down to .55 (.30 chance of scoring times 1.50 = .45 with manning factor, 1-.45 = .55)

Meaning the WP increase in raw terms is now .132, and as a percentage is about 24%. Makes it more favorable decision to go fot it

Edited by CTM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

with your logic why would the pats ever punt on anything 4th and 2, they are so

good, it is a sure thing, they have welker the HOF yakker

Most teams should punt less on 4th down, this is true. The problem is several fold. It goes against convential wisdom which is very dangerous to do when it doesn't work out (How many oaches have the cred to get away with it). The net result of this is that shallow thinkers are going to spend all weak blaming Belichick and completely ignore 1) yet another defensive collapse in the 4th and 2) Brady's inability to get a single first down to ice the game with 4 tries. Also, and just generally, people have a tendancy to focus on what they could lose rather then what they could win. So the calculation most people make is too risk focused. (a big reason why people go bonkers over "free" offers, no loss involved)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colts are beat up on Def, that was the weakest they will be

pats cannot run and that is their downfall

No Bye for Pats this year

What?

7 games to be played and only trailing Cincinnati by 1. It isn't a lock that Cincinnati holds onto the 2 spots. New England, San Diego or Denver could take it easily.

As for the no ground game, did you see the statistics of Maroney and Faulk on the ground last night? If the Patriots run the ball on that 4th and 2 they probably get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two words: Bob Sanders

And what? Manning and Wayne weren't "ripping it up"?

Gimme' a break. The Colts are a better team.

Only with Bob Sanders and they won't have him for the remainder of the season.

Sanders is the player who puts Indy on top. They lucked out last night, thankfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?

7 games to be played and only trailing Cincinnati by 1. It isn't a lock that Cincinnati holds onto the 2 spots. New England, San Diego or Denver could take it easily.

As for the no ground game, did you see the statistics of Maroney and Faulk on the ground last night? If the Patriots run the ball on that 4th and 2 they probably get it.

Faulks runs are alll gimmick plays

when they line up with LM He sucks 13 for 31 i think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A draw is a gimmick play? The Pats ran that 10 or so times last night and the Colts couldn't stop it.

When the def is playing for pass, these Faulk gimmick plays work

3rd and2 with game on line, Pats cannot run

fairly obvious, why they run so many bubbles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...