Bill Simmons Article on 4th and 2

[Patspsycho]

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.

Amen. The Jets game is TOMORROW, in case anyone has noticed!

 

[Boots Electric]

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

Great read on the link.

This is what I wanted to post yesterday but didn't really have time and you presented it much better. Manning had already down it twice. Doesn't matter what happened in Simmons eyes in the past.

The problem with Simmons is that he knows **** (as another poster pointed out) about football and what's worse is that he roots for the Patriots. Not saying it's bad too root for the Patriots, but he really misrepresents Patriots fans with his handling of situations such as these. And when he's called up on it and his arguments are shredded by statistical evidence he goes to his "well, I'm right and you're wrong because 90% of people on ESPN voted so and stats mean nothing" not realizing that 90% of people that vote on ESPN isn't something you want to hang your hat on to prove a point (Tim Graham is doing this now).

If you want more proof on how you can't trust Simmons with football, he constantly says that Belichick has lost it with drafting players on all rounds based on the fact that he doesn't like who they drafted in the first round since 2004 (Wilfork, Watson, Maroney, Mankins, Meriweather, and Mayo). Let it also be known when they asked him who was the Patriots first selection in the 2009 draft, he came up with a blank.

Sorry I kind of went off on a tangent there but I needed to just vent a little because the more I see that article, the more it upsets me. I have seen people defend the call from Easterbrook to Phlaschke to Dameshek, people who geniunely despise Bill Belichick. I never thought I would agree with them about Belichick over Simmons.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

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.

I agree that it isn't our strong suit to run the ball there, but just to show it would have been nice. In the Atlanta game, we actually did run it on 4th down, so the Colts would have to at least respect that possibility. And Faulk could always have leaked out of the backfield as another option.

If I was a Colts defender with that empty backfield, I'd be thinking short pass because there's no run option, and there's nobody to help pick up a blitz. But as you mentioned, it looked like the play was designed to go to Faulk no matter what.

It's easy to look back in hindsight. I just really hate that empty backfield look, no matter what the situation is.

But yes, time to move on. Long past time actually. Bring on the Jets

 

[aluminum seats]

Simmons has repeatedly circled back to one of his pet theories, in this case that coaches start losing it after they turn 55. He's referenced this about half dozen times. It's obviously not absurd to suggest people change as they get older, but he's lumped BB into a group including Shanahan, among others. I think it's safe to say that BB is unique.

Overall, just WAY too much handwringing and psychoanalysis into a call which in this case didn't work. He also falls into the trap of "if the Pats had just punted and lost, this would all be over." BB was trying to win, not worrying about whether or not it would be over, which Simmons and many others simply don't get.