Lazar: Belichick’s in-game decision-making is holding the Pats back

Yes, I do think this needs its own thread based on the graph below showing the Patriots as a huge outlier and therefore not a case of just fans whining in hindsight/damned if you do or don’t.

Also I don’t see how you can use an excuse that it’s about “protecting Mac” or not having faith in him or whatever. He’s their quarterback and is going to be in plenty of high pressure games and situations. He already has been. I think you need to do whatever gives him the best chance to win, which includes the correct risk:reward decisions.

In terms of punting in OT on 4th and 3, Lazar cites a 44% chance of victory if they went for it and 38% if they punted. Now, I think with a 6% difference, you have some wiggle room about the specific factors with “flow of the game” etc. However, consider the Cowboys drives during the game:

1st Drive - TO on downs
2nd Drive - Touchdown
3rd Drive - INT (in field goal range)
4th Drive - Field Goal
5th Drive - Fumble (in field goal range)
6th Drive - Punt
7th Drive - Touchdown
8th Drive - Field Goal
9th Drive - Missed Field Goal
10th Drive - Field Goal

In all: 8 of 10 possessions, the Cowboys drove into at least field goal range.

Other factors: Due to the extreme difference in number of plays for each team, the Patriots defense was gassed. McCourty commented after the game about how they were struggling with guys coming out and couldn’t hold up. They had allowed the Cowboys to move the ball 91, 61, 40, and 40 yards on the previous four possessions.

That and he hasn't challenged any calls either. A red flag could have helped their chances last Sunday.

No doubt this is true, and not good. Did anyone doubt the game was over in OT after the punt?

This goes back to Brady so this is not just a Jones/rookie QB thing. Lazar suggests that Bill likes to zig while everyone zags. I don't think that is it either as this has really nothing to do with the league and everything to do with gumption. I am glad Lazar brought up the 4th and 2 when we faced the Colts at our own 30. Bill went it for there precisely because our defense was gassed and Peyton was having his way all game. Pretty much the same exact scenario as the Dallas game.

My hope is that BB (and JMcD too) recognize this and adjust, especially when it comes to letting Mac make a play.



Of course, hope...

...is not a strategy.

But it's all I got!

amfootball said:

This goes back to Brady so this is not just a Jones/rookie QB thing. Lazar suggests that Bill likes to zig while everyone zags. I don't think that is it either as this has really nothing to do with the league and everything to do with gumption. I am glad Lazar brought up the 4th and 2 when we faced the Colts at our own 30. Bill went it for there precisely because our defense was gassed and Peyton was having his way all game. Pretty much the same exact scenario as the Dallas game.

Click to expand...

Lazar suggests Bill likes to zig while everyone zags.

Contrarian decisions over sound decisions. This problem can be seen in different areas of the organization from the draft to free agency to on-field calls. They benefitted from many of these against-the-grain tendencies for years, but now it seems they just do things to be contrarian for its own sake.

This risk-adverse approach is totally idiotic, especially for this year. Really doubt we are getting to the playoffs by playing conservatively going forward on a 2-4 record. If we were 4-2, yeah, playing conservative makes sense.

STEALER OF CONTENT

HEY MODS, WE HAVE THIEF HERE @MODS

I thought punting was the right decision at the time. I obviously was wrong, but it seemed like we were in good position to pin them in their own end and then win it on a FG after we held them or created a TO. I have no interest in seeing BB fired for anything he does this year. Next year if things don't get on track for the playoffs, then it will be time to consider a change. Mac as a rookie is unlikely to win a SB, I doubt recall any rookie QB leading a team to a SB win. I have lots of patience this year and am enjoying the competitive games despite the losses.

Also, IMO, the sample size is only 8 plays, seems like we need more data to have a trend.

Sorry, but "when they should" being just an alleged 1% gain minimum is rank idiocy, and hinging an argument on such a "when they should" means that you don't have an argument.

Deus Irae said:

Sorry, but "when they should" being just an alleged 1% gain minimum is rank idiocy, and hinging an argument on such a "when they should" means that you don't have an argument.

Click to expand...

I disagree with you partly

Is this the best way to analize agressiveness? doubtful

Is this a decent proxy? Yes, I think it is

While using imaginary hypoteses is kinda stupid in general, this "should" makes for a indicator that can be calculated

I think the "should" is all 4th downs that, statiscally, had a bette Winning percentage increase if the team decided to go for it, rather than punting.

If their data is reliable is another story, but the1% thing is not a problem at all, what they should have said is "excluding non-significative results" but thats a mouthfull

Deus Irae said:

Sorry, but "when they should" being just an alleged 1% gain minimum is rank idiocy, and hinging an argument on such a "when they should" means that you don't have an argument.

Click to expand...

It’s not the best way to quantify the risk:reward, but it does align with the extreme risk averse nature of the team this year, no? I agree; I would rather see the ranks and percentages used differently. @venecol noted all four coaches at the bottom are also the four oldest coaches in the league. That’s a notable coincidence that may suggest correlation. There’s no way to really assess this perfectly because of all the factors for each decision, but the overall rankings seem to align pretty well with perception.

archstanton543 said:

That and he hasn't challenged any calls either. A red flag could have helped their chances last Sunday.

Click to expand...

He’s been horrible at this starting in 2005 when Denver was awarded a fumble recovery even though Tom Brady showed the refs the ball coming out of the pile and in 2007 not challenging the Pierre Woods fumble recovery in SB 42 where you see Pats players arguing with the refs he had possession.

However, I think he challenged the Champ Bailey INT run back.

I don't think the decision to punt at midfield in OT on Sunday is what defines BB becoming safe.
But, the fact that his old-school mentality is hurting THIS team in a few ways is true.
1. His old school doghouse games are not going to help a very young skill position. The guys are going to make mistakes.
2. His miserly way with Timeouts and Challenge flags is leaving some big momentum opportunities and points off the field.
3. His affinity for veterans over talent has cost us games. If the old guys aren't named Bruschi, Brown, or Brady, play the young talented guy! (Bolden does not make the list of B's)
4. He hasn't seemed to get that this team isn't experienced enough to out-smart and out-grit opponents in the wily mistake-free veteran way of the last dynasty, so playing safe ball isn't going work in your favor! You have to let these guys play the emotion and the swings of production. Pedal to the metal!

I'm not sold on the methodology of this data, but even so, I'm not seeing a real strong correlation between the "gutsier" teams and winning records. Seems like there's good and bad teams spread throughout the chart.

Definitely some odd coaching decisions this season. A lack of challenges in situations that are more than close enough to throw the flag, being hyper conservative on 4th downs with a struggling defense, and the decision to kick a long field goal in the rain that even had we made it would have left Brady more than enough time (and timeouts) to get in position to beat us.

Not just in game decisions but game day personnel and the multiple in game packages/substitutions. The month long penalty box a RB has to sit in if he fumbles even when we desperately need active running backs. Harris cannot take the workload he is being given and seems to get dinged up every week. Stevenson needs to take some of those touches and if pass protection is still an issue coach him up. He needs the reps to get better and to keep Harris upright. Brandon Bolden is not the answer. He should not be playing meaningful offensive snaps, point blank. Same thing with the defensive substitutions. Bill seems to get too cute with running people on and off the field and it leads to confusion and wasted timeouts.

This shows that departed Ernie Adams was a huge influence and probably the main person BB trusted in-game to say 'it sounds a bit risky but rationally we should do X'. Now BB is listening to total dumbas-s like McD, this team looks more and more like the Denver'10 and St Louis'11 teams which is a really bad sign, BB is listening to crappy staff around him and he's 70 years old getting random cuts on his nose and face and probably leaning on his mediocre staff a ton more now.

.

Anyone still wanna argue about how the Tampa game ended?

I don't care. I am on team BB to the end. In the long run, most of his decisions will bear out and the results will be above average.

There's being aggressive and being aggressive just for the sake of being aggressive....

Analytics have ruined sports, LOL. Most tough decisions are close to 50/50 (or within 1 standard deviation to the mean) and in the end you gotta roll with your "feel".