CHB on Ernie Adams, I think from 1/29/2015

[Fencer]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...ind-curtain/IrNCfgrysUphGpkcIjEaBL/story.html

Pretty interesting article on Ernie Adams. Gets better after the CHB runs through his shtick about how secretive the Patriots are blah blah they're really secretive blah blah so let me guess things I don't know for sure blah blah.

Edit: Link fixed

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Sorry. Will not click on any CHB article.

 

[Oswlek]

Sorry. Will not click on any CHB article.

Yup. I'd rather not learn anything than learn it from a CHB article.

 

[patfanken]

Sorry. Will not click on any CHB article.

You intolerant bastard! Fencer vetted the article for you. Its not like you were going to have read one of his self serving diatribes. When he is informative, its possible to get through the snarkiness, and there is value.

Personally I'd love to learn more about Ernie Adams. He's such a mysterious guy. Over the years small hints have leaked out from Gillette that seem to point to Adams having a bigger role in the overall success of the Pats than most people know, Unfortunately, like a lot of things about the Patriots, we are probably going to have to wait for "the book". Besides I couldn't get the damned link to work, so I suppose you win.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Link no workie. Did Ernie erase it from the internet? Did he erase the whole internet!

#ernieadamsgate

 

[Kdo5]

Link is broken but easy to find on google. Shank has his usual bit, particularly regarding the fortress of secrets and paranoia that is Foxboro. But other than that there was some really good stuff in the article.

 

[shmessy]

Yup. I'd rather not learn anything than learn it from a CHB article.

One cannot learn anything about football from a CHB article.

(Other than it is a distant second to baseball in Boston).

 

[shmessy]

**Let me do a good deed for everybody and save them from having to click a link to someone who, before 5 weeks ago, didn't know whether footballs were pumped with air or filled with feathers.

Now THIS is a far better and more comprehensive story on Ernie Adams (and it has several pictures of the elusive mystery man):

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=adams

.

 

[Fencer]

**Let me do a good deed for everybody and save them from having to click a link to someone who, before 5 weeks ago, didn't know whether footballs were pumped with air or filled with feathers.

Now THIS is a far better and more comprehensive story on Ernie Adams (and it has several pictures of the elusive mystery man):

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=adams

.

I suspect that article of errors. E.g., it says that coaches don't get involved in drafting decisions, and that research has shown teams try 2-point conversions too often. (I find the latter hard to believe just because of how rarely they are tried.)

 

[shmessy]

I suspect that article of errors. E.g., it says that coaches don't get involved in drafting decisions, and that research has shown teams try 2-point conversions too often. (I find the latter hard to believe just because of how rarely they are tried.)

"Or there's Rutgers statistics professor Harold Sackrowitz, who got a call from Adams a few years back. Adams wanted to talk about some research Sackrowitz had just completed, dealing with how teams try two-point conversions far too often. Adams sent the professor the Patriots' when-to-go-for-two chart, and asked Sackrowitz to tear it apart. Of the 32 NFL teams, the statistician told the New York Times, only the Patriots called."

How is this an "error" of the article if it occurred? Are you claiming it didn't occur? It's ok to disagree with Sackrowitz about how he views the 2 point conversion, but it's not the article's fault that Adams contacted him.

 

[patfanken]

Shemess, thanks for finding this article and linking it to us. Its a gem. Ernie Adams truly is the "white whale" of those interested in the hows and whys of what makes the Patriots tick. That's both for Pats fans and their most ardent haters, who can use the mysteriousness of Adams as the excuse for all sorts of "Patriot mischief.

This article was so comprehensive and well written, it was hard to believe it came from ESPN. It couldn't have been easy to write given how limited the information on the main subject was. I wonder if the guy is still with them.

BTW- I understand Fencer's criticism. My first instinct was to wonder about a paper being done on how HC's are going for 2 pt conversions TOO much, when it seems like such a rarity in the game. So while I'm sure the comment was factual as written, it just seemed counterintuitive.

 

[shmessy]

BTW- I understand Fencer's criticism. My first instinct was to wonder about a paper being done on how HC's are going for 2 pt conversions TOO much, when it seems like such a rarity in the game. So while I'm sure the comment was factual as written, it just seemed counterintuitive.

I fully agree. However, it wasn't the ESPN article that was making the claim. They were just reporting Ernie Adams being the only NFL rep to contact the professor. The writer of the article was making no editorial comment on the 2 point conversion.

In the meantime, I wish the producer of "The Theory of Everything" would take on "Ernie Adams: The Man Who Wasn't There" as his next film.

 

[BelichickFan]

and that research has shown teams try 2-point conversions too often. (I find the latter hard to believe just because of how rarely they are tried.)

It's clear watching the games that teams go for 2 too often. How often do you see teams go for two early, miss, then have to "chase the point" by going for two again later.

 

[BelichickFan]

Now THIS is a far better and more comprehensive story on Ernie Adams (and it has several pictures of the elusive mystery man):

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=adams

Not sure if I missed that 7 years ago or if I forgot about it. Tremendous article, either way. I love Bill but Ernie truly fascinates me.

 

[dales804]

It's clear watching the games that teams go for 2 too often. How often do you see teams go for two early, miss, then have to "chase the point" by going for two again later.

 

[patfanken]

I fully agree. However, it wasn't the ESPN article that was making the claim. They were just reporting Ernie Adams being the only NFL rep to contact the professor. The writer of the article was making no editorial comment on the 2 point conversion.

In the meantime, I wish the producer of "The Theory of Everything" would take on "Ernie Adams: The Man Who Wasn't There" as his next film.

That's a GREAT idea, though comparing Ernie with Hawkings might be a bit of a stretch.

Personally I just hope I'm alive when BB FINALLY writes the definitive tell all book, in which all our questions will be answered. Now THAT will be a great day.

 

[Nonentity]

I've heard NFL types wonder before whether Bill might write a Bill Walsh-type book...."Football Coaching Methods" has a nice ring to it.

 

[Fencer]

"Or there's Rutgers statistics professor Harold Sackrowitz, who got a call from Adams a few years back. Adams wanted to talk about some research Sackrowitz had just completed, dealing with how teams try two-point conversions far too often. Adams sent the professor the Patriots' when-to-go-for-two chart, and asked Sackrowitz to tear it apart. Of the 32 NFL teams, the statistician told the New York Times, only the Patriots called."

How is this an "error" of the article if it occurred? Are you claiming it didn't occur? It's ok to disagree with Sackrowitz about how he views the 2 point conversion, but it's not the article's fault that Adams contacted him.

I'm suggesting that it's a misquote. That happens a lot on technically difficult issues.

In fairness, it's tough to be sure one way or the other; Sackowitz has suggested that common decisions for 1 points vs. 2 and 2 points vs. 1 can both be wrong. And I must admit that the Patriots rarely go for 2.

 

[Fencer]

I have at times had exchanges such as:

"I can't believe you said X", where X is a press quote.
"I didn't."

In fact, long ago, I taught my late father a technique for dealing with such situations.

 

[BelichickFan]

In fairness, it's tough to be sure one way or the other; Sackowitz has suggested that common decisions for 1 points vs. 2 and 2 points vs. 1 can both be wrong. And I must admit that the Patriots rarely go for 2.

The problem with going for 2, unless you really have to, is you're only doubling the points from a near certain 1 but you're doing it on what is, statistically, a less than 50-50 shot. So mathematically it just doesn't work. Google tells me there's a 47.9% success rate. Think of the money Vegas could make offering double or nothing when the house wins 52.1 percent of the time.

Going for it on 4th down, of course, is wholly different, partly because the success rate on 4th and 2 or less is good and there's so many other variables (likelihood of scoring if you make it, likelihood of allowing point if you fail/punt).

But going for two is nothing more than an easy statistical exercise - with the one exception being if you have a play that, based on film study, you are confident will be successful.