Bill Simmons Article on 4th and 2

Is he hard up for some attention? This Headline & article is a joke! Played out already. This is their best they can come up with? They love to hate us. It's cool when BB pulls something out of his cut sleeve everyone will be on his jock again & he'll be brilliant again. Anyway who cares IN BILL I TRUST.

Simmons used to be a favorite of mine as he captured the mindset of the young Boston sports fan. The past couple years though he seems to have become much more negative (or maybe realistic) about the Boston teams. He was down on the Red Sox, down on the Celtics last year, down on the Pats to varying degrees the last couple years. I'm not saying unfairly down on these teams, but to me a big part of his appeal was reading him getting wrapped up in the possibilities of the teams rather than pointing out their flaws and generally being down on them. Maybe it was the move to Cali, or him getting older, or even elevated expectations from so many championships, but something has changed and for my tastes it has been for the worse.

He should stick to something he knows about..a load of crap and a few days late..it stinks...The refs made a bad spot..in fact they put it down where Faulk fell..which meant that Faulk would have to have bobbled it for that length of time..THAT is pure fiction...that crew is gutless..and totally incompetent.

ESPN gradually sucks the life out of promising and enjoyable journalists to read. This was inevitable.

As the old expression goes, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. I don't think Simmons is really the right guy to take on the numbers though.

For one thing, his assertion that a 4th down is the same as a 2-point conversion is way off for reasons that have already been covered. I'd just add that this might have been the worst argument I've ever seen over the 4th down call.

Also, the stats are based on NFL averages. The argument made by many is that it can't account for many variables, such as play calling, player talent, et cetera. And I understand that and agree with that.

But that argument cuts both ways. I couldn't find short yardage stats, but since 2005, the Patriots have been pretty good on 4th down conversions of all sizes. 2009 isn't off to a good start, though the sample size is still quite small.

2009-46% (11 attempts)
2008-77% (22 attempts)
2007-71% (21 attempts)
2006-80% (20 attempts)
2005-76% (17 attempts)

As for the guy on the other side of the ball, I think we can all agree Peyton is not your average QB, so his odds of coming back and scoring are a bit higher than the stats give credit for.

As for Simmons' stat about the number of teams that have scored 3 long TDs in the 4th quarter to win a game, this is a classic example of lies, damn lies, and statistics. First off, it's rare for ANY team to score 3 TDs of any length in one quarter. Second, most good teams aren't in a position where they need to score 3 TDs of ANY length to win a game in the 4th quarter. Actually, even a lot of bad teams don't find themself in that scenario often.

As for the argument that it was obviously poor management because BB didn't run on third down, I'd just add that we have a coach who has just gone for it on 4th and short inside his own 30 twice this season. Obviously, we don't have a conventional coach. EVERYONE knows you run it on 3rd down if you're going for it on 4th to force them to use the time-out. So maybe BB switches it up there. Maybe he doesn't do what everyone else would do. Is it really that inconceivable?

There were definitely mistakes, don't get me wrong. The wasted timeouts was definitely poor game management. The PI call was absolutely atrocious, and I was hoping someone from the Pats would lodge a formal complaint over it. And if we didn't get shafted on the spot, or Brady saw Welker...but the bottom line is we had our chances, and we didn't get it done.

We can argue back and forth on the math, or the way numbers are calculated, or if they even matter at all. But this article is just silly and isn't credible at all.

The way you criticize his use of 2-pt conversion stats, is pretty funny since you then pull up 4th down conversion stats, ignoring that the vast majority of these were 4th and less than a yard.

What I hated about the column was how he belittled anyone who tried to defend the call, calling all defenses inane. He may make good points but there is no point in insulting readers like that. Ugh, it reminds me of every other sports columnist who calls fans stupid for doing A or B. For Simmons to do it, someone who goes out of his way to claim he writes from a fans perspective, this is especially disgusting. Get over yourself.

By the way, I am outpicking him so far this year even though I spend maybe 5 minutes looking at the games every week and have never gambled on football in my life. And I am supposed to take his inane argument seriously...I don't think so.

maverick4 said:

The way you criticize his use of 2-pt conversion stats, is pretty funny since you then pull up 4th down conversion stats, ignoring that the vast majority of these were 4th and less than a yard.

Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd say it is funny They're just completely different situations. A 2-point conversion is attempted in the end zone and the defense only has to cover 12 yards. While most 4th down attempts are short yardage as well, the defense must cover more than just 12 yards from the line of scrimmage.

Saying we should use 2-point conversion stats to calculate the odds of a 4th down conversion seems stupid when we can just look at 4th down conversion numbers.

And even the 4th down conversion figures in the formula don't account for the Pats general success on 4th down (not counting this season), so I'd argue that their odds of winning should be higher. Usually bad teams are forced to go for it on 4th down due to game circumstances. KC, Washington, and TB are the top 3 teams in 4th down attempts so far this season, which tends to pull the overall conversion rates down.

I hated the actual play called, but they got what they wanted, they completed the pass they intended, and they got screwed on the spot (which is not surprising, and part of throwing such a short pass). But it was one play. No single play wins or loses a game.

I'd also add that conventional logic would also have meant taking a knee against the Rams in the Super Bowl and hoping for a lucky coin flip. Instead, broadcasters (and many fans) were in shock that Brady kept throwing the ball (all the way to victory).

I will say that I wouldn't have argued if BB had punted in that situation. And if it had been me, I definitely would have punted because I wouldn't have had the guts to attempt it.

But I'm tired of people claiming it was the stupidest decision ever or that BB has lost it or that it was an insane thing to do. Bottom line is some people loved the call (I did), and some people hated it, and there's not much we can say to convince one another.

It was a close call, and a tough call, and he went one way and he didn't get it. Even the best QBs throw picks. Even the best DBs get burned. Even the best LBs miss a tackle. And even the best coaches make calls that don't go their way. But it wasn't as crazy a decision as some may think.

fillylabinga said:

It is NOT like a 2 pt conversion. At all. In a 2 pt conversion the defense only has 12 yards of field to defend. In this situation the defense had 70+ yards of field to defend. The Pats had converted earlier this season on 4th and short by going deep to Moss.

Click to expand...

It is like a 2 point conversion - because if the Colts give up the 2 yards - they give up the game. They might as well give up a touchdown if they give up the 2 yards. For the Colts - when the Pats went for it - they either not let Pats convert or assume the game is gone. So it is not 70+ yards to defend - it is 2 yards to defend.

If the Pats had won, Simmons would be praising BB for his big balls. Simmons is so reactionary and comes across like such a little ***** it's ridiculous. He used to be my favorite but I don't even bother reading him anymore.

Patjew said:

If the Pats had won, Simmons would be praising BB for his big balls. Simmons is so reactionary and comes across like such a little ***** it's ridiculous. He used to be my favorite but I don't even bother reading him anymore.

Click to expand...

Yeah I don't remember the outrage from him when they did it in the Atlanta game up 6 points.

Stokes said:

Yeah I don't remember the outrage from him when they did it in the Atlanta game up 6 points.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I mean.

Haven't read something that made me this angry in a long time.

stop pretending you care about the outcome anymore Bill. Maybe when it was easy to be a fan because the endings were happy. it's fun to back a frontrunner. it feels great when you have a lead and mariano rivera comes out. you get to be a ****y sports fan and run around your living room like a jackass and forget about your own insecurities for a little while.

Sorry we can't share in your "INANEly" giddy 10-page argument designed to prove how intelligent you are which retreads every single knee-jerk argument we've already heard a thousand times over.

don't bother reading it, I'll sum it up: it wasn't conventional, so therefore it was wrong. Let's ask Sean Payton what he thinks, "well, the Colts wanted them to punt." Bill, what do you think about that, "I don't care, it was still an example of Belichick's arrogance and insanity."

Is he actually delusional enough to think there's a chance he could run an NFL team, or call the plays. Would there be anything better in this life than for one game actually witnessing a Bill Simmons-called NFL game. after the humiliation of that experience, would he ever try to write a serious column again?

he thinks BB lost his hunger to win. LOL.

Look into his eyes at the end of the game you ****tard.....look into the players eyes. "Not as hungry as they used to be..."???

this guy has just proven how little insight he really has. Stick to trying to be funny Bill, you're pretty good at that.

Leave the pathetic defeatist loser sob stories to yourself. These guys care way too much and have more hunger and heart than any overexposed Page 2 dweeb could possibly fathom.

Kevin Faulk made the 1st down.

whoosh said:

It is like a 2 point conversion - because if the Colts give up the 2 yards - they give up the game. They might as well give up a touchdown if they give up the 2 yards. For the Colts - when the Pats went for it - they either not let Pats convert or assume the game is gone. So it is not 70+ yards to defend - it is 2 yards to defend.

Click to expand...

It is similar to a 2-point conversion in some ways, yes. But it actually is a 4th down attempt. They either stop the Pats or assume the game is gone. Why are we discussing what it is similar to when we can talk about what it actually is?

A 2-point conversion is different because the defense has less field to defend, and most teams deploy their goal line package (The fact that teams have a goal line package should be enough evidence to show they're not the same scenario). On 4th down attempts outside of the redzone, while a long pass is extremely unlikely (though not unprecedented), the defense usually must account for that and keep the safeties further back from the LOS than they would in a 2-point attempt.

Simmons did make one good point, which I agree with:

By not showing even a threat of a run, they eliminated the possibilities of a draw, a play-action pass, a delayed screen, a designed rollout or anything else that would have made the Colts say, "We have to be prepared for anything here," and soften their coverage.

Even if the Pats weren't going to run, the defense must at least account for it with a running back in the backfield, just like how the defense must account for a longer pass on a 4th down attempt, which is why I didn't like the actual play they called.

But to argue that the 2-point attempt is the same thing as a 4th down attempt is absolutely incorrect.

maverick4 said:

Even with the best QB's, the chance isn't as high as people think that you can just march down the field, 70 yards, 2 minute, 1 timeout, needing a touchdown (not a field goal).

If Manning had done that after we punted, it would have been epic (epic, because it happens so rarely, even for the great ones). Look at Manning's comebacks, even for him it is very difficult to score a required TD with such little time.

Look at how often Brady has failed the past 4 years to get a key score when we needed it.

Click to expand...

Why don't you tell us how often that actually is, and while you're at it don't even try to count the '07 SB off an undefeated regular season as a Brady fail because he led a come from behind TD drive in that one only to have his defense give the lead back 2+ minutes later with 30 seconds left on the clock and 80+ yards to go. I know to you that thereafer somehow constituted epic fail on Brady's (and the OC's) part, but that's an irrational viewpoint to say the least.

Sunday Manning had just led 2 4th quarter TD drives in a matter of minutes. That actually makes it more likely he could do it again with just under 2 minnutes and a TO remaining. His 4th quarter comeback success rate like Brady's is in the roughly 60% range of opportunities. There are people trying to establish standardized comeback criteria and piece all the data together to form a historical basis for ranking QB's all time in 4th quarter comebacks. At the rate they have performed thus far, both Manning and Brady project to be among the leaders when their career's are done both by sheer volume and success rate close to double the league average.

I guarantee you since the raw data already exists, Ernie Adams has already calculated his own version of the probabilities as well as a small size sample calculation of the odds of the 2009 NE defense stopping a QB with a 60% success rate from anywhere on the field even at full strength. And he apprised Bill of those probabilities somewhere between first and third down.

Simmons is a classic case of a fan who became immediately entrenched in his own position based on the result as well as his perception of conventional wisdom thereafter using tortured logic to unearth otherwise irrelevant statistics to disprove any basis for an alternate, unconventional approach rather than attempting to understand why it had any. Had the spot been right, he'd have spent the last five days enlightening himself and smugly admonishing the dim witted stragglers of the world to join him in that enlightenment...


Pro-football-reference.com blog Quarterbacks and fourth quarter comebacks, Part II

One thing he injected into his article that was rather pointless was how often teams came back by scoring 3 TDs in the 4th Quarter. He tried to use the fact that since it's so rare, it would have been rare for Peyton to make a comeback had BB punted... but that isn't right. This is a simple case of "what happened in the past doesn't matter. Just because the colts scored 2 TDs already has no baring on whether they score a 3rd. Each drive is independent. The odds would be the Colts getting a game winning drive, not 3. It was a 6 point game when BB made the decision.

I find it rather dishonest that Simmons would try to bring that up as evidence as to why BB made a bad call. It would be like someone saying a Poker player had no chance of winning a 4th straight all-in with AA... it doesn't work like that, the odds are the same for each independent event.

Not sure why folks are harping on Simmons for putting out this article on Friday, since that is the day his NFL column comes out every week. Agreed that he's a bit long-winded and not particularly focused.

One thing I agree with, however, is that the last drive was horribly mismanaged. Bill knew he wanted to go for it in that situation (and I don't disagree, given how tired the pass rush looked on the previous drive), but the play-calling didn't acknowledge that. They should have run on third down, force Colts to use their last timeout, and then be ready to go for it on fourth down, before they could get set to defend two yards. One receiver gets space and the game is over. Instead BB let O'Brien run the show until the offense started running off the field, let O'B call a play that telegraphed a pass, and didn't have a timeout to challenge a critical call. However you feel about the call, that's bad coaching.

BB should have taken the clipboard for that last drive, plain and simple. O'B isn't called offensive coordinator b/c he hasn't earned it yet. That was painfully apparent Sunday night.

convertedpatsfan said:

It is similar to a 2-point conversion in some ways, yes. But it actually is a 4th down attempt. They either stop the Pats or assume the game is gone. Why are we discussing what it is similar to when we can talk about what it actually is?

Because the author was hunting for any statistic that could be utilized to underscore his argument given the statistic specific to the situation didn't...

A 2-point conversion is different because the defense has less field to defend, and most teams deploy their goal line package (The fact that teams have a goal line package should be enough evidence to show they're not the same scenario). On 4th down attempts outside of the redzone, while a long pass is extremely unlikely (though not unprecedented), the defense usually must account for that and keep the safeties further back from the LOS than they would in a 2-point attempt.

Simmons did make one good point, which I agree with:

By not showing even a threat of a run, they eliminated the possibilities of a draw, a play-action pass, a delayed screen, a designed rollout or anything else that would have made the Colts say, "We have to be prepared for anything here," and soften their coverage.

Even if the Pats weren't going to run, the defense must at least account for it with a running back in the backfield, just like how the defense must account for a longer pass on a 4th down attempt, which is why I didn't like the actual play they called.

But to argue that the 2-point attempt is the same thing as a 4th down attempt is absolutely incorrect.

Click to expand...

I think the reason they did not use a formation that threatened a run was because they were attempting to spread the field in 5 wide to create space and favorable matchups while utilizing their 5 best pass catching personnel simultaneously while anticipating they would face a blitz, which they did. 5+5+1=11 so there was no option for someone out of the backfield including Faulk who might well have been stoned at or behind the LOS as a result. Screen was out for the same reason. It was short pass beyond the sticks all the way and based on the pre snap alignment it was Faulk all the way from Brady's perspective because of the matchup.

It wasn't a bad call or even bad execution in hindsight, although had Faulk gotten off his chip better he'd have been a yard or 2 deeper and not in position to have to leave his feet to make the catch - which as much as any bobble allowed for the potential for a questionable spot. But he's small and not used to getting chipped off the LOS. Had they used a second TE in place of Faulk he might have proved more difficult to impact off the LOS, but they wanted essentially their best/most trusted pass catching hands team on the field in that situation and Faulk is certainly in that group. We haven't seen much of Baker the pass catcher through the first nine weeks. Stanbeck and Edleman were rookies in their first game or first game back sporting a cast.

So while it would have been nice to be able to threaten the run, and nicer still to actually utilize it on 3rd and 4th down for a variety of reasons, it isn't our strong suit for an equal variety of reasons and hasn't been for a long time and you go with your best plays and players in that circumstance as Brady reiterated. That mentality won't change until the OL run blocking and RB's prove they are a consistently bankable short yardage option.

Fans also need to understand that decisions like the 4th and short or 2 point conversion play calls are made prior to the game. Part of the decision to go for it in those situations is predicated on the HC believing he has a play designed for those situations that will work. Which is also why teams seldom go for it twice in a game since having gone for it once utilizes that pre-determined best situational play.

All I care about now is the Jets, Saints, Dolphins, Panthers, Bills, Jags, Texans, and whoever the F*** decides to get in the way of the Lombardi.