Belichick's Decision

by jallred350 on Nov 17, 2009 8:17 AM MST Comment 38 comments

Below is an interesting website that looks at the percentages to determine if Belichick's decision to go for it on 4th and 2 from his 28 was a good move, by the numbers. Of course this doesn't take into account things like: (1) the psyche of the defense, since a lot of the defensive players will consider going for it there a slap in their faces or (2) the chance that the Pats make it on 4th down and still lose (although this is so small it really isn't even worth putting in the calculation).

I've had a pretty heated discussion with a friend at work about the decision. Was just curious what you all think about the move? Put it this way. What would you want Whiz to do if the Cards were in the same situation? Give the ball back to Manning with 2 minutes and 2 timeouts and 70 yards to go, or take control of the game with the 4th down attempt? And does it make a difference if it is regular season of the Super Bowl? I'll share my thoughts after a few of you chime in.

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

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Revenge of the Birds' (ROTB) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of ROTB's editors.

0 recs | Comment 38 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I was fine with it

With two minutes to go and all three time outs, Peyton would have scored even if the drive started in Nebraska. The Pats only shot was to hold onto the ball.

Be careful....to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

by Bezekira on Nov 17, 2009 9:10 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

With the Cardinals?

I’d prefer to punt it. Manning would have 5 Super Bowl rings by now if he was truely “unstoppable”. He has two rookie receivers and Clark was shut out of that game. In the Super Bowl I would def feel better to punt. Whiz would face mass riots if he went for it. Let the blame fall on the D if they can’t stop Peyton.

What? I didn't break it, I was just testing its durability, and then I placed it in the woods becuase it's made out of wood and I just thought he should be with his family.
Revenge of the Birds

by Andrew602 on Nov 17, 2009 9:26 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

I couldn't believe he went for it...

I MIGHT have understood if it was 4th and inches or MAYBE even 4th and 1 but going for it on 4th and 2 at your own 28, up by 6 with 2 minutes left.. Most people seemed to be saying that oh well if he goes for it and makes it he’s a genius, if they don’t he’s a moron. No, I think no matter the outcome if I’m a Pats fan I’m going wtf? And others were blaming the refs for blowing the call, but even if they did (and it was a close call) that’s besides the point because Belicheat already blew his timeouts. I dont care if it’s Peyton Manning, the Pats have had a competent defense this whole decade and going +70 yards with 2 mins to go and 1-2 t/o’s is a tall order for any QB.

by Fitz Jizzle on Nov 17, 2009 10:27 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

It's the same thinking of going for the 2 point conversion rather then tying the game,

which rarely happens with the exception of the Broncos/Chargers game last year. He was going for the win in that situation. I do agree that he should’ve put it on the defense, at least in that case it looks like the better team won. The refs got the call exactly right. Faulk bobbled the pass and when he had control he was down before the first down marker.

What? I didn't break it, I was just testing its durability, and then I placed it in the woods becuase it's made out of wood and I just thought he should be with his family.
Revenge of the Birds

by Andrew602 on Nov 17, 2009 11:39 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I understand your point but if I'm him in that situation,

I put my faith in Brady instead of a defense that 408 yards and 28 points at that point in the game.

Be careful....to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

by Bezekira on Nov 17, 2009 11:44 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

The Pats D had already given up 14 points in the 4th quarter. I would have done the same thing.

The one thing I had a problem with was the play that was run. I would have tried to get the ball into Moss’s or Welker’s hands not Kevin Faulks.

by Pyromnc on Nov 17, 2009 12:23 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

they probably figured with Faulks speed he would have it.

What? I didn't break it, I was just testing its durability, and then I placed it in the woods becuase it's made out of wood and I just thought he should be with his family.
Revenge of the Birds

by Andrew602 on Nov 17, 2009 3:37 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought it was a bad spot

I thought they had the first down and the ref gave the colts a home town call … then I thought they would let the colts score quickly, and I thought Bill got pissed again when Addai was tackled at the 2 yard line (letting the colts run the clock down) … wacky ending to a great game

regardless of how you feel about the 4th down call, there aren’t many coaches in the league with the balls to go for it in that situation

by quid pro quo on Nov 18, 2009 9:18 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

My point was the hands.

Welker and Moss are much more sure handed than Faulk, and in that situation if Faulk does not bobble the ball they have the first down. Now I do not know if Welker or Moss do not bobble it or even catch it but I like my chances better with them rather than Faulk.

by Pyromnc on Nov 18, 2009 9:52 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair, I didn't watch the whole game

and didn’t see Pats 4th Quarter D, but regardless I think I would punt the ball. Time could’ve been a factor driving from the other side of the field, but time isn’t a factor 28 yards out. Also, for the other question jallred posted, with a punter like Ben Graham I’d want the Cards to punt it in that situation =)

by Fitz Jizzle on Nov 17, 2009 4:23 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

disagree

I watched that game and Manning wasn’t throwing all that well. In addition to the two interceptions, there were several other “dying quails” that should have been intercepted. Belichek blew it.

by BPaul on Nov 17, 2009 8:56 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

He was playing much better in the 4th quarter.

Manning’s bread and butter has been 4th quarter come backs which I think he would have had regardless of field position.

by Pyromnc on Nov 17, 2009 8:57 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Manning

Actually some of his worst throws were in the fourth quarter, most of them passes of 20 yards or more, which is the type of pass he would have had to throw if they need to go 70 yards. I thought there might be something wrong with his arm, because the long passes didn’t have their usual zip. One of them was completed when his receiver adjusted well and had to come way back toward the line of scrimmage while the defender was confused and dropped back. No, it wasn’t a buttonhook, it was a badly thrown ball. I also agree with another comment that the NE strategy would no longer be prevent but to put pressure on Manning, who seems to lead a charmed life. Not that he isn’t good, but people have him on a pedestal that isn’t warranted.

by BPaul on Nov 18, 2009 7:49 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Hasn’t Manning always featured the ‘wounded duck’ in his throwing arsenal … certainly tight spirals are not his strong suit (big reason the colts struggle outside and want home field so badly)

What Manning does do well(very well, maybe the best) is keep the defense back on their heals with quick reads and no huddle offense. He dictates what teams do on defense, and he is the master at changing up plays at the line of scrimmage. And the Colts practice the 2-minute drill every day at practice. You won’t convince me a 35-40 yard punt would have made a bit of difference it the outcome, but Manning throwing an interception is the best I’ve heard. Believe it or not I’d have just let Addai score, and put the ball back in Bradys hands only needing a FG. But then again R. Wayne was against me in FFL and kicking my @ss, and I never liked ‘conventional wisdom’ or prevent defense.

by quid pro quo on Nov 18, 2009 9:53 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I have gone back and forth on this

As I was watching the game I thought it was crazy to not follow convential wisdom and punt. By the next morning, I was thinking maybe it was the best call. Frankly, the more I think about it the better call I think it is.

Either way, Belichek is the only coach in the league that can make that call. Most coaches would get crucified for it, but statistically it was the right call.

I think a lot of so called “convential wisdom” calls actually need to be reevalauted. For instance, I think a lot of late game penalites should be declined. In the last quarter of the seattle game, the Seahags get to the cards 4 yd line, first and goal. they throw an incomplete pass on the first play, but also have illegal formation penalty. I decline that penalty and go with 2nd and goal from the 4 rather than 1st and goal from the 9.

Getting to your questions about Whiz, I think the cards punt and should punt in that situation SB or not.

by Drullin'OverDaCards on Nov 17, 2009 10:49 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

He makes it he's a genius

He doesn’t and he’s insane.

by badmatty53 on Nov 17, 2009 11:34 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

This is how the sports media and most fans treat this, but...

I want to know what people thought about the decision. Try to take the result out of the equation. Just put yourself in his shoes with all the information he had at the time.

by jallred350 on Nov 17, 2009 11:56 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I remember

Barry Switzer doing the same thing awhile back and getting ripped for it as well. It’s not ever going to be well-received, whether it works or not. It doesn’t break my heart to see Belichick have to eat a little humble pie as I don’t like the arrogant jerk.

Regardless, it didn’t involve the Cardinals so I haven’t spent too much time worrying about it. I’d hate to see the Whiz try the same thing. You have to trust your “D” in a situation like that.

by Long Beach on Nov 17, 2009 11:48 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

Horrible Call

I’m with what Teddy Bruschi and Rodney Harrison said on ESPN after the game, it looked like Belichick had no faith in his Defense and that horrible call just gave the win to Manning.

Just Punt it and hope that you can stop Manning. I noticed some Clancy Prevent while the Colts were rallying in the 4th Quarter, if the Patriots actually tried to go after him they could have won it.

Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan.

No band-wagoner fans allowed, pick a team and stick with em, throughout the good and the bad.

by JoeCB1991 on Nov 17, 2009 12:10 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

I liked it strictly for entertainment sake.

Never do card tricks for the group you play poker with.

by sc464 on Nov 17, 2009 12:13 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

+1

by Fitz Jizzle on Nov 17, 2009 4:17 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I liked the call.

Yes, it backfired but those are the chances you have to take. Read this article yesterday, statistically he made the right call:

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

When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome again. True story.
-Barney Stinson

by Red Reign on Nov 17, 2009 12:24 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Thanks Red Reign.

I was in the middle of posting my analysis when you posted this. I completely agree with the link you provided.

by jallred350 on Nov 17, 2009 12:32 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't know if you follow Greg Easterbrook on ESPN...

…but he has written numerous articles based on the various probabilities of going for it on 4th down. The link below goes to a recent article, but there are links within it that go back to his previous articles. Pretty good stuff.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/090922&sportCat=nfl

When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome again. True story.
-Barney Stinson

by Red Reign on Nov 17, 2009 3:12 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I read him...

I couldn’t wait for today’s column to see what he had to say about this decision. I’m glad he stuck to his guns.

by jallred350 on Nov 17, 2009 4:06 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Where's the stat

that discusses how often a team scores when they take over on downs at their opponent’s 28 yard-line?

by Long Beach on Nov 17, 2009 4:25 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Jallred would be better suited to answering that question...

…but each option gave the Patriots a different probability of winning. They didn’t end up winning and the plan backfired, but Belichick still chose the option that gave them that higher probability.

When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome again. True story.
-Barney Stinson

by Red Reign on Nov 17, 2009 5:19 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Respectfully disagree

I think what he did pretty much threw the game away, the risk didn’t come close to matching the reward.

Even if they make it, I don’t think it ends the game because as I understand it from those who watched it, the Colts had all their timeouts left so they could have continually killed the clock in a new series. Second, it is incredibly presumptious to think that a team will drive the field (theoretically, who knows where the punt might have gone) and score with only two minutes remaining, especially against a team as good as New England. I don’t expect anyone to know this off the top of their head, but how many drives in the final two minutes, in the NFL, end in a touchdown? Conversely, how many drives that begin on a turnover, especially inside the other team’s 30, end up in touchdowns? I’d like to see the percentages on those two situations and see if Belichick’s idea still gives them the best probability of winning?

Bottom line, conventional thinking exists for a reason. You just can’t risk turning the ball over on your own 28 when you’re holding a 6-point lead with only minutes to play. Honestly, it sounds like something Gene Stallings would have done.

by Long Beach on Nov 17, 2009 6:43 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Unfortunately, I don't know the numbers that you asked for.

And I don’t know any of the probabilities that I presented below for sure. What I did was put forth a scenario with very conservative probabilities to prove the point.

And, I didn’t presume that they’d drive the field and score. I said they’d do it 50% of the time given the circumstances, which I think is fairly conservative. The Patriots defense was shot. Manning had just gone 71 yards in 6 plays without breaking a sweat.

Regarding the probability that the Colts would still win if the Pats succeeded on the 4th down attempt… The Colts had 2 timeouts remaining. They would have had to burn 2 of them on the Pats 1st and 2nd down runs. 3rd down would have put the clock at ~1 minute. So the Colts would have the ball at their own 20ish yard line with less than 1 minute and no timeouts. I would say their chances of scoring a TD would be very low in that situation. But your point is a good one. It does add some equity to the punt argument. I’d say 5% or less.

You are right. Conventional thinking exists for a reason. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other ways to do things. Look at the Wildcat. It is hugely popular today, but what would have happened if it flamed in the first game it was tried? What if the Patriots beat the Dolphins 35-0 in that game. People would have blown a gasket, but since it worked it was pure genius. That is result oriented thinking. Just because something doesn’t work doesn’t mean it was the wrong move. Next time you hit on a 16 when the dealer is showing a Q and you bust, that doesn’t mean it was the wrong move.

Anyway, as others have said, whether you agree with it or not, it has sparked some great discussion.

by jallred350 on Nov 17, 2009 7:22 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Clarification

When I said it was presumptious to say the Colts would have scored, I didn’t mean you, I was speaking in general about the replies that made it sound like it was a forgone conclusion that the Patriots would have lost if they had punted. We’ve all seen enough football games to know that the percentages tilt greatly into the Patriots chances of winning if they don’t turn the ball over at their own 28.

Anyways, it wasn’t the Whiz who did it so at the end of the day Belichick can go for it all he wants inside his own 30 for all I care.

by Long Beach on Nov 17, 2009 7:46 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

My take.

I’m a statistician by trade, so forgive my nerdness, but I absolutely feel Belichick did the right thing.

Assuming the Pats win if they try on 4th down and succeed, there are 3 things that need to be considered here:

1) Probability the Pats succeed on the 4th down attempt.
2) Probability the Colts score a TD from the Pats 30ish yard line if the Pats try and fail.
3) Probability the Colts score a TD from their own 30ish yard line if the Pats punt.

Of course all of these are up in the air, but I will present a scenario that is very conservative (i.e. favors punting), but still shows that the Pats had a better chance of winning by going for it.

I would say the Colts would score at TD ~50% of the time from their own 30 yard line with 2 minutes and 2 timeouts remaining. The Pats defense was shot. Manning is Manning and he had the Pats gameplan figured out at this time in the game. 2 minutes and 2 timeouts is an eternity for that offense. So if the Pats punt, they will win the game 50% of the time.

If they go for it, I give them a 50% chance of success on 4th and 2 (again I believe this estimate to be low, but I am being intentionally conservative here to make my point). So 50% of the time the Colts will get the ball with 2 minutes left, 2 timeouts, and 30 yards to go for a TD. Assuming they score 90% of the time here (again I believe this estimate to be on the high end of the range, but I’m being conservative), the Colts will win 45% (0.5*0.9) of the time.

So punting yields a 50% chance of victory for the Pats and going for it yields a 55% chance of victory for the Pats.

As stated above, I believe the numbers I chose are conservative. Using what I would consider more realistic numbers only strengthen my stance.

The only problem I had with the decision was that the Pats didn’t think about 4th down until it was 4th down. Had they decided on 3rd down that they were going to go for it on 4th and 2 (or less) they could have run the ball (the Colts would not have expected this from the Pats) or they could have thrown the ball further downfield (again a move the Colts would not have expected). But waiting until 4th down to make the decision led them to call 2 very predictable play calls.

by jallred350 on Nov 17, 2009 12:31 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

I put the colts chance of scoring a td from

thier own 30 @ 70% based upon the players, game and situation. I agree with 90% for scoring from NE’s 30. I think the 50% conversion of 4th & 2 is a little low, I think 60% is a better number based upon the people involved and the surprise factor of actually snapping the ball.

So Based upon my numbers:
punting is 30% victory for NE
going for it 64% victory for NE

by Drullin'OverDaCards on Nov 17, 2009 1:05 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

So what you're saying is regardless the Colts were going to win the game, but Belichick made the decision to give his team the win.

What? I didn't break it, I was just testing its durability, and then I placed it in the woods becuase it's made out of wood and I just thought he should be with his family.
Revenge of the Birds

by Andrew602 on Nov 17, 2009 3:41 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Each option (going for it or punting), gave the Pats a different probability of winning. I’m saying that going for it on 4th down led to a greater probability of victory than punting.

I think that, in general, the NFL community is too conservative. I guess I can’t blame them for being so since there are millions of dollars at stake. I just wish that innovation wasn’t immediately declared stupid by the establishment like it was in this situation. When you stop and think about it, it isn’t as clear cut as many of the talking heads make it sound. There is a good argument for him going for it, whether you agree with it or not.

Having said all that, if the Cards were in that situation, I’d probably want Whiz to punt it away :)

by jallred350 on Nov 17, 2009 4:06 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Great Analysis!

Jallred…that’s some good number crunching, yo!

I also agree with the call that Belichick made, but where the Pats really screwed the hoochie was when they failed to convert on third down to begin with.

Where the Colts won the game was when they forced a fourth down. For some reason, few out there have pointed that out.

You make an excellent observation in regard to Belichick not being prepared for a fourth down situation, as well. He certainly should have known precisely what he was going to do should that situation come up, and he didn’t. Cost him an extremelly valuable time out.

I’m uber-anti “whine about the officiating” guy, so I consider the call a non-factor, personally. The call was the call. Nothing the Pats could have done about that except not bobble the ball, make more than one yard or played without officials on the field.

I don’t think Belichick’s decision had anything to do with “faith in the defence” at all. He’s Bill Belichick, possibly the best head coach the NFL has ever seen (I don’t like the guy, but hey…credit where credit is due, yo), and I guarantee that guy is not lulling around on the sideline questioning “faith” in anything. He made a pro decision that he believed gave his team the best chance to win. I do not believe I’ve seen Belichick make any other kind of decision, ever. The guy has more knowledge in regard to the game of football in his pinky-toe than I or anyone else posting here has in their whole body.

And I wouldn’t listen to Dilfer or Brusci on this one…usually I like Dilfer’s analysis but in this case he’s a grass blade judging an oak tree. There’s a reason he’s an ESPN yawker and Belichick’s a HoF head coach in today’s game.

One other thing I’d like to mention…I’m no Pats OR Belichick fan BY ANY MEANS, I pretty much hate ‘em both. But I still gotta give that team props for taking the loss like men. Bilichick and Brady were both class acts in regard to this game. Notice you didn’t hear Belichick make ONE snivelly-crybaby comment about the officiating or the calls on the field.

Far cry from Hasslegirl and Coach Junior from the NFC West’s daycare center up there in Seattle…

Below is a Pyrrhuloxia nest we discovered in a cholla near our home in the spring:

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/ArizonaCardinals/turf.jpg

by Maynard Leopold on Nov 18, 2009 4:05 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't matter what decision he made, peyton is unstoppable

by CardsDefense on Nov 17, 2009 6:24 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

That's the best argument for going for it

Peyton doesn’t get the ball back at all.

by Drullin'OverDaCards on Nov 17, 2009 6:30 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

He's a great quarterback

no doubt, but that is showing him a little too much respect. The Patriots are the one team that have been a thorn in his side, and you just can’t give him the ball at the 28 – at least make him earn it.

They did manage to force a couple of turnovers out of him that game as well, so while I’d hate to see him back out on the field for a final drive it’s not exactly common for a Belichick defense to give up a game-winning touchdown late in the game, either. (Before you say it, yes, I know the last time it was done another Manning engineered it, but stat-wise, since we’re on that topic, it doesn’t happen very often).

by Long Beach on Nov 17, 2009 8:18 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs