Curran: Fourth and one call proves Belichick is fearless

[Kontradiction]

OK, we'll get right on that....

EDIT: Nevermind, that was too harsh. I'll look them up when I get home from work and post them.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

It was a good move but a bad call, I would have passed it, the passing game was very conservative yesterday.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Belichick considers all possibilities both good and bad for all alternatives.

One alternative that few have considered alongside blocked punts, long punt returns, is the probabilities that the Chargers would chew up all the time while marching to score from their 20, after a punt. I urge you to recall the Denver game in which Belichick ordered surrendering a Safety in order to preserve enough time to march and win, in turn.

If the Patriots don't succeed on 4th and 1, then perhaps the Chargers score quickly enough marching only 50 yards at most, for the Patriots to respond, just like the the Broncos game.

 

[WhiteWesWelker88]

I supported going for it.....



Brutal play call, however.

 

[WhiteWesWelker88]

It was a good move but a bad call, I would have passed it, the passing game was very conservative yesterday.

Dude.... they were all over us in coverage. That is why no one was open.

 

[Kontradiction]

Okay, this website has us converting at around 50% of our 4th down tries since 2009. However, being the critical thinker that I am, I'm going to do my due diligence and break it down game by game starting with Week 1 of 2009 vs. Buffalo.

2009:
1. vs. Bills - 0/2
2. @ Jets - 0/1
3. Vs. Falcons - 3/3
4. Vs. Ravens - 1/1
5. @ Broncos - 0/0
6. Vs. Tits - 1/3
7. @ Bucs - 0/0
8. BYE
9. Vs. Dolphins - 0/0
10. @ Colts - 0/1
11. Vs. Jets - 1/1
12. @ Saints - 2/3
13. @ Dolphins - 0/1
14. Vs. Panthers - 1/2
15. @ Bills - 0/0
16. Vs. Jags - 2/3
17. @ Texans - 0/1

2009 season total - 11/22 (50%)

2010:
1. Vs. Bengals - 0/1
2. @ Jets - 1/1
3. Vs. Bills - 0/0
4. @ Dolphins - 1/1
5. BYE
6. Vs. Ravens - 0/1
7. @ Chargers - 1/2

2010 season total - 3/6 (50%)

Those are my calculations based on NFL.com's advanced statistics. So, coming into the game, we were converting at or around 50% of our 4th down tries since 2009. I'm sorry, but when you take that into consideration on top of the fact that the offensive line was playing poorly against both the run and the pass (which makes me ask why some people thought a play action pass was a good idea), I think that going for it on 4th down was a terrible idea. With the way Mesko has been punting lately on top of what he did for us last week in a clutch, key situation, I would have let him punt it and put the game in the defense's hands.

 

[Mack Herron]

The way they stuffed our run all day, I thought it was a poor decision.

 

[bradydaman29]

I'm almost always down with going for it on 4th down so no problem with the call, just the play. I would have preferred a play action call and hit Gronk like they did for the TD, those plays work a high percentage of the time.

Another call that had me puzzled during the game was, I think it was at the end of the first half with about 2 minutes to go. The pats tried a long pass (which they complete probably 10% of the time) that would have been a quick score if completed. I would love to hear the reasoning for that call, given that if they made it,it would have given SD ample time to match the score. Why not eat up some clock with some short, high percentage passes and increase the chance of at least getting 3 points and leaving SD little time?

 

[aluminum seats]

Something's been bugging me about this debate that I don't think has been addressed.

I would have punted, but definitely understand the impulse of essentially ending the game with one play. Having said that, there seems to be a feeling about the "go for it" crowd that the value of a punt is essentially zero. I've heard a lot of "yeah, the Chargers would have made up that 40 yards in about 10 seconds, so what's the point?" kind of thing.

I find this strange. Didn't we all agree that Mesko's punt last week was a game changer? Put it this way--the difference between a team being on its own 10 and the opponent's 10 is obviously huge. That's an 80-yard difference, or 40 X 2. Do we just concede that teams drive the length of the field at will? Even allowing for a softer D the first 40 yards (particularly at that stage of the game), which would tighten as the Chargers approached the red zone, I think we should acknowledge that having to go further is harder. Field position matters.

 

[bradydaman29]

Something's been bugging me about this debate that I don't think has been addressed.

I would have punted, but definitely understand the impulse of essentially ending the game with one play. Having said that, there seems to be a feeling about the "go for it" crowd that the value of a punt is essentially zero. I've heard a lot of "yeah, the Chargers would have made up that 40 yards in about 10 seconds, so what's the point?" kind of thing.

I find this strange. Didn't we all agree that Mesko's punt last week was a game changer? Put it this way--the difference between a team being on its own 10 and the opponent's 10 is obviously huge. That's an 80-yard difference, or 40 X 2. Do we just concede that teams drive the length of the field at will? Even allowing for a softer D the first 40 yards (particularly at that stage of the game), which would tighten as the Chargers approached the red zone, I think we should acknowledge that having to go further is harder. Field position matters.

At that point, the Charges were in a nice offensive rhythm, so it would have made me more nervous punting that trying to end it. Just one man's opinion.

 

[aluminum seats]

At that point, the Charges were in a nice offensive rhythm, so it would have made me more nervous punting that trying to end it. Just one man's opinion.

I understand that--but then don't you want to pin them inside the 20 vs flipping a coin (going for it) and giving them the ball at midfield? After all, rhythm or not, the Chargers consistently demonstrate they'll screw up if given enough time.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I find it very interesting that so many are criticizing the call when there was a huge hole for BJGE to easily get the first down. The problem is our running back ran like an undrafted free agent who doesn't have a clue where the hole is - and then made an awful decision on 4th and short to stretch it out when the play calling indicated no blocking on the outside.

So why so little criticism of our running back? And why so much on a play call that works if the running back simply goes where the play is designed? I guess no one else paid any attention to the end zone view of the play that shows an incredible hole over left guard/tackle with every defender blocked and a 6 yard wide opening to an untouched first down.

 

[TX_Patriot]

Going for it on Fourth down really only proves that BB is consistent. I haven't looked at the raw numbers, but the Pat's are usually one of the top 2 or 3 teams for going for it on Fourth down every year since the BB/TB union.

I had no doubt that the team was going for it since the risk/reward was so high. They convert 50% of the time and if they did, the game was over. So 50% the game is over on one play + say 20% they don't convert but the pats D still holds. So ~70% chance of winning by going for it versus just kicking it away.

 

[Kontradiction]

I find it very interesting that so many are criticizing the call when there was a huge hole for BJGE to easily get the first down. The problem is our running back ran like an undrafted free agent who doesn't have a clue where the hole is - and then made an awful decision on 4th and short to stretch it out when the play calling indicated no blocking on the outside.

So why so little criticism of our running back? And why so much on a play call that works if the running back simply goes where the play is designed? I guess no one else paid any attention to the end zone view of the play that shows an incredible hole over left guard/tackle with every defender blocked and a 6 yard wide opening to an untouched first down.

This "HUGE HOLE" theory has been thoroughly debunked with photographic evidence.

 

[aluminum seats]

I find it very interesting that so many are criticizing the call when there was a huge hole for BJGE to easily get the first down.

Speaking for myself, it's because I find the question of whether to go for it or punt more interesting than just this specific instance. It came up last year, and will again. The fact that the play sometimes won't work--for whatever reason--is understood for those purposes.

 

[aluminum seats]

Going for it on Fourth down really only proves that BB is consistent. I haven't looked at the raw numbers, but the Pat's are usually one of the top 2 or 3 teams for going for it on Fourth down every year since the BB/TB union.

I had no doubt that the team was going for it since the risk/reward was so high. They convert 50% of the time and if they did, the game was over. So 50% the game is over on one play + say 20% they don't convert but the pats D still holds. So ~70% chance of winning by going for it versus just kicking it away.

Is adding the percentages together the correct way to figure that?

At any rate, what is the difference in percentage between having the Chargers get the ball at the ten vs. midfield? Too many variables to figure, I guess.

I'm also not sure we can say 50% in this case as far as conversion goes--the Pats were having a tough time of it offensively for a lot of the afternoon.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I think that other factors about the particular game and teams should be considered, but in general, I thought studies proved that going for it on 4th and short gives a greater chance of winning.

A New Study on Fourth Downs: Go for It - NYTimes.com

Advanced NFL Stats: Belichick's 4th Down Decision vs the Colts

 

[aluminum seats]

I think that other factors about the particular game and teams should be considered, but in general, I thought studies proved that going for it on 4th and short gives a greater chance of winning.

A New Study on Fourth Downs: Go for It - NYTimes.com

Advanced NFL Stats: Belichick's 4th Down Decision vs the Colts

Yup--I remember those from last year (your Times link didn't work for me, btw). I supported going for it in the Colts' game, because my feeling was the Colts were scoring at will. Ultimately, I think there are too many variables from game to game to use figures too rigidly.

It was Easterbrook (I know, I know), I think who raised the question of whether teams should essentially ALWAYS go for it.

 

[bradydaman29]

I understand that--but then don't you want to pin them inside the 20 vs flipping a coin (going for it) and giving them the ball at midfield? After all, rhythm or not, the Chargers consistently demonstrate they'll screw up if given enough time.

It's a tough call, but at that point the choice is between "pinning them down at the 20" and "either ending the game or flipping a coin" (or the Chargers getting a penalty and missing a 50 yd fg).

 

[TX_Patriot]

Is adding the percentages together the correct way to figure that?

At any rate, what is the difference in percentage between having the Chargers get the ball at the ten vs. midfield? Too many variables to figure, I guess.

I'm also not sure we can say 50% in this case as far as conversion goes--the Pats were having a tough time of it offensively for a lot of the afternoon.

You're right, too many variables to know for sure, but probabilities are always what they are. You can't change how you look at them in the process of using them. It's the coin flip question, if you flip a coin 25 times and it comes up heads 25 times, what's the chance it comes up tails on the next flip? Still 50%.

At that moment in the game, BB knew he had at worst a 50/50 shot of making 1 yard. He took his chances.