4th and 2 on the their own 30 - Discuss it here [merged 10x]

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Why going for it was right

facing 4th and 2, the Pats had about a 60% of getting the first down. This of course would have ended the game. 60% is a historical league average, you can quibble with this figure up or down if you want, but thats around the ballpark % chance the Pats make it.

As I said elsewhere, it was a risky call. If it worked, it would be hailed as brilliant. If it didn't, it would be ridiculed as bone-headed.

I look at this like that other fourth-down call from that other game.

It's not a lack of faith in the D (or, in that case, Gostkowski), so much as trust (perhaps excessive, perhaps not) in the offense.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Why going for it was right

As I said elsewhere, it was a risky call. If it worked, it would be hailed as brilliant. If it didn't, it would be ridiculed as bone-headed.

I look at this like that other fourth-down call from that other game.

It's not a lack of faith in the D, so much as trust (perhaps excessive, perhaps not) in the offense.

Yes, I agree. If the Pats convert there, the storyline would be how only Belichick would have the guts to call that play and with Brady he can afford to. Now people are comparing it to some of the worst calls in NFL history.

I didn't agree with the call when he made it and still don't, but I cans ee why he would call it.

 

[bakes781]

re: 4th and 2 on the their own 30 - Discuss it here (Merged 9X)

I don't have as much of a problem with them going for it on 4th and 2 as I do with them not going into 3rd and 2 KNOWING they'd be going for it on 4th and 2. Cuz had they planned to go for it on 4th regardless than running the ball on 3rd down would've made more sense. They'd have forced Indy to use it's last TO or get it to the 2 minute warning. Instead they wasted not 1 but 2 TOs on that drive. Inexcusable to not be prepared there.

Regarding the lack of confidence in the defense. It was the front 7 that was gassed. There was no pressure on Manning whatsoever. The secondary played a great game. The pass interference call on Butler was BS. That said Peyton gets all the credit in the world for another remarkable comeback that quite honestly would've probably happened even if the Pats had punted the ball away.

 

[Bartmac36]

Re: Why going for it was right

I honestly believe, whether we punted or went for it, our defense wasn't going to be able to stop them. All there scoring drives in the 4th were less than 2 minutes long, and our D suddenly decided to play terrible prevent. I was totally with BB on that one, I had no confidence in our defense at that point...

 

[Kontradiction]

re: 4th and 2 on the their own 30 - Discuss it here (Merged 9X)

Well, I had a night to sleep this off and nothing has changed for me. I'm sorry, but anybody that thinks that going for it on 4th and 2, regardless of whether it was a bad spot, has got to lay off the Kool-Aid and would probably follow Belichick into a raging fire (and certain death) if he said that it was a good idea. Going for it in that situation was a terrible decision considering the circumstances. The bottom line is that a coach who never leaves anything to chance went out there and LEFT SOMETHING TO CHANCE. We did have any timeouts left and we weren't in a position to challenge a bad spot. That ball should have been punted all the way. If Manning drives down the field for a TD, I could live with that. But you have to at least give your defense a chance to win the game for you.

 

[xmarkd400x]

Re: Why going for it was right

I saw the 4th and 2, and thought BB would go for it. I would have also gone for it (I am also not a football coach at any level, so take my armchair analysis for what it's worth.)

I will say, however, when I saw them come out in 5 wide, I cringed. I would have liked to see them do something that they just absolutely never EVER do, like play-action naked boot. I feel like in a short yardage situation, you should line up in a formation you can at least run out of to keep the defense honest.

Who knows, maybe BB thought the Colts would put in their heavy personnel, and he would get a matchup by going 5 wide. For all we knew, he had a 90% play called, and it just didn't work out.

I hate this loss.

 

[Kontradiction]

re: 4th and 2 on the their own 30 - Discuss it here (Merged 9X)

No, he didn't give him the ball with 30 yards to go for the win. He gave him the ball with 30 yards to go to score and, here's the rub, score quickly.

The mistake Belichick made was not telling the D to give up the Touchdown on the first play, much like he told his Offense to take a Safety in Denver a few years ago (though admittedly under different circumstances).

Like it or not, Bill Belichick last night decided that his Defense couldn't stop Peyton Manning, otherwise he would have punted and made him try to go 70--90 yards (about where the Colts would have gotten the ball after a reasonably covered punt) for the score. He decided that the likelihood of that eventuality was high and then made the calculation that there would be no time left on the clock if it occurred.

It was actually quite a rational decision, though one that had the odds clearly against it if they didn't pick up the yard and a half. It didn't pan out.

Then what was the point of going out and getting all of these new faces on defense if we're not going to trust in them when it matters most? And for that matter, why was the defense so tired? If anything, it should have been the Colts defense that was tired with the time consuming drives we had laid on them up until midway through the 4th.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Why going for it was right

Yes, I agree. If the Pats convert there, the storyline would be how only Belichick would have the guts to call that play and with Brady he can afford to. Now people are comparing it to some of the worst calls in NFL history.

I didn't agree with the call when he made it and still don't, but I cans ee why he would call it.

I can't. We didn't have any timeouts to challenge something should "Chance" turn around and bite us in the ass. It was a dumb move, and one that Belichick does not always make. And he knew it too. You can tell by the facepalm after it happened.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Why going for it was right

In no way was it the correct move. That guy's expected points figure is wrong for this analysis, because he isn't factoring how much of a penalty you receive if you give Peyton the ball only 30 yards away from the end zone, the expected damage is much higher than he's factoring in.

Also, the team was up by 6 points. Forget expected averages, the chance Peyton would have driven on an EPIC 70 yard drive for a TD (a FG is worthless) is much lower than people think.


As good as Peyton Manning is, there was probably only a 50/50 shot at best that he would actually score an epic, TD-winning 70 yard drive with 2 minutes left. He had thrown two horrible balls for interception in that second half. Our secondary was also playing well all game.

Peyton is good, but people are rationalizing this as if the Colts would have scored anyways from their own 30, which is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

re: 4th and 2 on the their own 30 - Discuss it here (Merged 9X)

Agreed, despite Al Michaels' insistence that Faulk didn't have it.

Just to review: YouTube - Kevin Faulk Stopped Short on 4th Down in New England Territory..Patriots vs. Colts

Faulk made the catch and the yardage and the spot is wrong.

If you watch the play, and stop it just as Faulk's foot hits the turf, his foot is SQUARELY on the 30 yd line.
At that point, he was not bobbling the ball, he had a firm grasp on it.

 

[PrairiePat]

re: 4th and 2 on the their own 30 - Discuss it here (Merged 9X)

But you have to at least give your defense a chance to win the game for you.

Ummm, he did give them a chance to win the game. It wasn't as if BB gave the Colts the ball on the goal line. They defense had 30 yards to defend in 2 minutes, and it only took the Colts 4 plays to score.

BB's decision gave BOTH units a chance to win the game, and they both failed. I loved the decision at the time, still do, though I sure wish we hadn't wasted the timeouts earlier.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Why going for it was right

In no way was it the correct move.

You were up by 6 points.


As good as Peyton Manning is, there was probably a 50/50 shot he would actually score an epic, TD-winning 70 yard drive with 2 minutes left. He had thrown two horrible balls for interception in that second half.

Peyton is good, but people are rationalizing this as if the Colts would have scored anyways from their own 30, which is pretty ridiculous.

For once, mav, we agree.

 

[makewayhomer]

Re: Why going for it was right

In no way was it the correct move.

ok, lets hear your reasons

As good as Peyton Manning is, there was probably a 50/50 shot he would actually score an epic, TD-winning 70 yard drive with 2 minutes left. He had thrown two horrible balls for interception in that second half.

ok, lets call it 50/50. what do you think the Pats conversion % is? plug those into the simple formula from above. what do you get?

Peyton is good, but people are rationalizing this as if the Colts would have scored anyways from their own 30, which is pretty ridiculous.

I'm 100% sure you didn't read my post

 

[RayClay]

Re: Why going for it was right

facing 4th and 2, the Pats had about a 60% of getting the first down. This of course would have ended the game. 60% is a historical league average, you can quibble with this figure up or down if you want, but thats around the ballpark % chance the Pats make it.

so if they will convert 60% of the time, then going for it gives them a Win Probability of at least 60%. I say "at least" b/c even if the fail to convert, the Pats still have a chance of stopping the Colts from the 30. what % is that? the league average in this situation is around 53%, though I think we would agree that the Colts vs our defensive had a much higher % chance of scoring. call it...75% ? that means 25% of the time, even when we don't get the first down, we win by stopping the Colts.

so,

(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.75)) = 70% Win Percentage for Pats

the alternative move of course is to Punt, which on average will put the Colts right around their 34. (again, these #'s are taken from the above link).

what are the odds the Colts drive down and score now? We used 75% chance from the Pats 30, so it's obviously going to be much less from their own 34. The historical league average is 30% in this situation, but again I think it's higher than that. Call it 45%. that means the Pats have a 55% Win Probability from punting.

given those assumptions above, going for it leads to pats victories 70% of the time while punting leads to victories 55% of the time. you can play around with those #'s yourself and change the assumptions, but you would need to plug in some weird #'s to come to a conclusion that says punting is the right move.

2nd point: in terms of the decision making process, the results don't matter. the decision to punt or not punt is not made correct or incorrect by what happens afterwards. to call decisions "right" or "wrong" based solely on the results is horribly incorrect "analysis". sometimes Faulk gets to the 30, sometimes he doesn't, but either way going for it was right. sometimes the result is going to look bad, sometimes it won't. you need to divorce yourself from the results if you want to learn how to make the best decision.

If a bus was coming and you had a 90% chance of getting across the street without getting hit, would you do it?

 

[aluminum seats]

Re: Why going for it was right

facing 4th and 2, the Pats had about a 60% of getting the first down. This of course would have ended the game. 60% is a historical league average, you can quibble with this figure up or down if you want, but thats around the ballpark % chance the Pats make it.

so if they will convert 60% of the time, then going for it gives them a Win Probability of at least 60%. I say "at least" b/c even if the fail to convert, the Pats still have a chance of stopping the Colts from the 30. what % is that? the league average in this situation is around 53%, though I think we would agree that the Colts vs our defensive had a much higher % chance of scoring. call it...75% ? that means 25% of the time, even when we don't get the first down, we win by stopping the Colts.

so,

(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.75)) = 70% Win Percentage for Pats

the alternative move of course is to Punt, which on average will put the Colts right around their 34. (again, these #'s are taken from the above link).

what are the odds the Colts drive down and score now? We used 75% chance from the Pats 30, so it's obviously going to be much less from their own 34. The historical league average is 30% in this situation, but again I think it's higher than that. Call it 45%. that means the Pats have a 55% Win Probability from punting.

given those assumptions above, going for it leads to pats victories 70% of the time while punting leads to victories 55% of the time. you can play around with those #'s yourself and change the assumptions, but you would need to plug in some weird #'s to come to a conclusion that says punting is the right move.

2nd point: in terms of the decision making process, the results don't matter. the decision to punt or not punt is not made correct or incorrect by what happens afterwards. to call decisions "right" or "wrong" based solely on the results is horribly incorrect "analysis". sometimes Faulk gets to the 30, sometimes he doesn't, but either way going for it was right. sometimes the result is going to look bad, sometimes it won't. you need to divorce yourself from the results if you want to learn how to make the best decision.

Pretty good stuff here, and we could probably use more of it--god knows the baseball guys talk numbers all day. I think the Pats percentage on 4th & 2 is more like 75%, which would be more accurate than the league average, so their overall chances to win (factoring in the possibility of stopping the Colts) would likely be over 80%. Factoring in the on-the-field status of the D, it was probably the right move. It just seems shocking and counterintuitive.

The other aspect of this is psychological, meaning how the D reacts to the attempt to bypass them. I think BB's the best guy around to minimize the ramifications of that.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

Re: Why going for it was right

Makewayhomer -

I'm with you here. I just wish the play hadn't resulted in such a razor thin margin for error which gave license for the the refs to interpret the result and end up swaying things in favor of Indianapolis. I know that everyone rooting for the Colts last night didn't want to see New England come out looking for that 2 yards... if you're doing things that really make the other team uncomfortable, I'd estimate that you win more than you lose. Faulk came up short, the team couldn't challenge, game set and match... Playoffs go through Indy this year.

 

[Kontradiction]

re: 4th and 2 on the their own 30 - Discuss it here (Merged 9X)

Ummm, he did give them a chance to win the game. It wasn't as if BB gave the Colts the ball on the goal line. They defense had 30 yards to defend in 2 minutes, and it only took the Colts 4 plays to score.

BB's decision gave BOTH units a chance to win the game, and they both failed. I loved the decision at the time, still do, though I sure wish we hadn't wasted the timeouts earlier.

Did you seriously just say that? Giving the ball to Kyle Orton, much less PEYTON MANNING, on the 30 yard line is a death wish. The Pats would have been better off just letting them score then letting them kick off with 1:30 left in that case.

Bottom line is that Peyton was making some bad decisions and our chances to win would have gone up tenfold if we had punted (great job on the punts last night too, by the way) and gave them a long field to drive. I really can't believe that there are that many people in here that support this decision. Chalk it up to be inebriated by the Kool-Aid I guess.

 

[MVPKiller]

Re: Why going for it was right

If he punted it, Manning would have gone deep and drawn ANOTHER pass interference call at about the same spot they were already at. They had the ball with 2 min. left, why give it back when you have a chance to just close the game out? It was the right move, it just was the wrong play.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

re: 4th and 2 on the their own 30 - Discuss it here (Merged 9X)

Ummm, he did give them a chance to win the game. It wasn't as if BB gave the Colts the ball on the goal line. They defense had 30 yards to defend in 2 minutes, and it only took the Colts 4 plays to score.

BB's decision gave BOTH units a chance to win the game, and they both failed. I loved the decision at the time, still do, though I sure wish we hadn't wasted the timeouts earlier.

Sorry, but I disagree, giving the D 30 yds to defend is hardly givng the D a chance. How often do you see a team go for it on 4th down on their own thirty, with 2 mins left and a 6 point lead? Answer: Never. There is a reason for that.

 

[letekro]

Re: Why going for it was right

If a bus was coming and you had a 90% chance of getting across the street without getting hit, would you do it?

No!!! Please tell me we're not rehashing this!!! Please go back to the atlanta post game thread for dozens of pages of discussion on this EXACT TOPIC and cites to academic journals on this topic.