Going for it on 4th down was CORRECT...here's why...

[captain stone]

I completely agree w/ McSully, Seacoast, Maverick et al who correctly point out that the problem
with the 4th/5 call was the 3rd/5 call. And exactly like the Indy game in '09, a run should've been
the call because Bill must have known that he was going to try a 4th-down conversion. So a draw
or one of those beautiful toss power sweeps would possibly have caught the donkeys off-guard
if they were thinking pass before run.
Once again, the brain trust out-thinks themselves in the 4th quarter.

 

[PatsDeb]

I hated that 4th & 2 call in Indy several years ago. I still put that down as one of BB's biggest coaching mistakes of all time, calling it there, and calling the play he did. The one the other day didn't disturb me so much, but I DID NOT like the play call. Our guys didn't look ready and Brady almost got killed. Why not run it there when we were doing so well with the run? It was a better call there though for several reasons - 1) the place on the field it occured - it was no man's land on the Broncos side of the field instead of on our own 30 yard line); 2) we were protecting more than a one score lead so if we didn't make it and the Broncos scored, we were not giving the game away (like we did in Indy).

I don't see how you can't look at the results as part of deciding whether it was the correct call. Twice we have gone for it against Manning late in the game when he is getting on a roll to try to keep him off the field. Twice we have failed and the first time it cost us the game. The second time it almost cost us Manning getting to within 3 points with several minutes still left in the game. Hasn't it been proven at this point that this is not a good strategy?

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I had zero issues with this call or 4th and 2 in Indy.
4th and 11 instead of a 48 yard FG on the other hand :bricks:

 

[PatsDeb]

I had zero issues with this call or 4th and 2 in Indy.
4th and 11 instead of a 48 yard FG on the other hand :bricks:

Yeah, that was the other biggest coaching mistake I have ever seen BB make.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Yeah, that was the other biggest coaching mistake I have ever seen BB make.

I just had to go and ruin our mornings didn't I

 

[BSR]

I don't see how you can't look at the results as part of deciding whether it was the correct call. Twice we have gone for it against Manning late in the game when he is getting on a roll to try to keep him off the field. Twice we have failed and the first time it cost us the game. The second time it almost cost us Manning getting to within 3 points with several minutes still left in the game. Hasn't it been proven at this point that this is not a good strategy?

Because you are only looking at the results from two times it didn't work and not all the times that it has. Belichick goes for it on fourth more than almost all other NFL coaches and has done so in big games. He's looking at his chance of making a first down, not what happened the last time he tried it and failed.

 

[BSR]

You have not proven statistically that the New England Patriots offense faced with a 4th and 5 have a statistically better chance of success than punting in that situation.

You asked for a proof of this before, and I am not sure if you are still checking this thread but the below link is to a proof about going for it on 4th downs. Ironically, it was done by the guys at Advanced NFL Stats which you referenced.

Go forIt on 4th Down

 

[PatsDeb]

Because you are only looking at the results from two times it didn't work and not all the times that it has. Belichick goes for it on fourth more than almost all other NFL coaches and has done so in big games. He's looking at his chance of making a first down, not what happened the last time he tried it and failed.

Without looking it up and only from memory, against others he usually only goes for it if it is 4th & 1 and somebody can do a sneak or a short run. It's only against Manning, IMO, that he takes much bigger risks, trying to throw on 4th down (and I am not talking about where we are down in the 4th with little time on the clock and desparately going for it on 4th down no matter what the distance).

 

[BSR]

Without looking it up and only from memory, against others he usually only goes for it if it is 4th & 1 and somebody can do a sneak or a short run. It's only against Manning, IMO, that he takes much bigger risks, trying to throw on 4th down (and I am not talking about where we are down in the 4th with little time on the clock and desparately going for it on 4th down no matter what the distance).

He's gone for it 21 times with 4-6 to go while in opposing territory with a lead. They convert about 50% of the time.

 

[brdmaverick]

He's gone for it 21 times with 4-6 to go while in opposing territory with a lead. They convert about 50% of the time.

I haven't looked at the site where you got your figures. I imagine they are true. Some may be in odd game situations though.

Two off the bat that I can recall.....

2007 against Washington...do you remember the Pats converting a fourth down in the FOURTH QUARTER in opponents territory while completely obliterating them?

2011 against Kansas City...sort of a standard 'don't run up the score' fourth down. Pats converted a Shane Vereen TD (I believe from the six).

Both game situations were VERY different from the ones we are discussing. I'm merely just pointing that out. I'm actually on your side of the argument that attempting unconventional fourth downs is the right play in some scenarios.

 

[PatsDeb]

He's gone for it 21 times with 4-6 to go while in opposing territory with a lead. They convert about 50% of the time.

Looking at BD Maverick's point below your original post, I am also not talking about where we have a huge lead and go for it merely to keep the clock moving and end the game and we don't really care if they get one more score or we eschew a meaningless FG. I am only talking about situations where the game is on the line and BB goes for it on 4th down specifically to keep the other team's offense from getting back on the field because he is AFRAID to punt and let the defense try to stop the other team. I submit he only goes for it when it is more than 4th & 1 against Manning in this situation. If I am wrong, so be it. That is my perception.

 

[BSR]

Looking at BD Maverick's point below your original post, I am also not talking about where we have a huge lead and go for it merely to keep the clock moving and end the game and we don't really care if they get one more score or we eschew a meaningless FG. I am only talking about situations where the game is on the line and BB goes for it on 4th down specifically to keep the other team's offense from getting back on the field because he is AFRAID to punt and let the defense try to stop the other team. I submit he only goes for it when it is more than 4th & 1 against Manning in this situation. If I am wrong, so be it. That is my perception.

I'm not sure I understand. The situation you describe about having a huge lead and just trying to keep the clock moving was exactly the situation we were in. I don't think it had anything to do with being afraid of Manning having the ball. There was 8 minutes left. Of course he was going to have the ball again.

 

[PittPatriot]

...I submit he only goes for it when it is more than 4th & 1 against Manning in this situation. If I am wrong, so be it. That is my perception.

I perceive similarly…if kind of makes me recall in the early 2000's when all the pundits would say, "The Genius BB is in P. Manning's head…"
Now, I feel Peyton has gotten into BB's head.
I didn't disagree with 4th and 2 but I was frustrated by the 23 inch play to get 24 inches (sorry Kevin).
However, I did not like the SB 4th and 11 call and thought that along with last Sunday's 4th and 5 decisions both speak to a level of arrogance Josh or BB may have.

 

[BSR]

I haven't looked at the site where you got your figures. I imagine they are true. Some may be in odd game situations though.

Two off the bat that I can recall.....

2007 against Washington...do you remember the Pats converting a fourth down in the FOURTH QUARTER in opponents territory while completely obliterating them?

2011 against Kansas City...sort of a standard 'don't run up the score' fourth down. Pats converted a Shane Vereen TD (I believe from the six).

Both game situations were VERY different from the ones we are discussing. I'm merely just pointing that out. I'm actually on your side of the argument that attempting unconventional fourth downs is the right play in some scenarios.

The figures are from Pro Football Reference, where I did a search of every offense pass or run attempt (i.e., non-punt) on fourth down. I then looked at those that that were between 4-6 yards. I didn't really look at them beyond that so there could have been some odd scenarios in that group. Regardless, its still clear that he goes for it on 4th and around 5 yards quite often. I think that was the overall point: that you can't just look at the results of this one and the Indy 4th & 2 and declare it a failed strategy. You have to look all of the results. Looking at the history there are couple of things you notice, Belichick goes for it much more often then conventional wisdom dictates and he typically has good results from it.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Guys, it's simple. 4th and 2 and 4th and 5. Same principle: in some situations possession is more important than field position. When Manning is moving the ball 20 yards every ten seconds, a forty-yard punt becomes almost negligible, or in the case of 4th and 5, 20-25 yards of field position versus potentially killing the clock entirely!

BB identifies when his defense has had it, and in those cases, the defense was basically spent. If they gave Manning the ball back either time, it's not a matter of whether he'd drive down the field, it was just a matter of whether they could hold him to a field goal. And frankly, where Manning gets possession of the ball becomes less relevant.

 

[BSR]

I perceive similarly…if kind of makes me recall in the early 2000's when all the pundits would say, "The Genius BB is in P. Manning's head…"
Now, I feel Peyton has gotten into BB's head.
I didn't disagree with 4th and 2 but I was frustrated by the 23 inch play to get 24 inches (sorry Kevin).
However, I did not like the SB 4th and 11 call and thought that along with last Sunday's 4th and 5 decisions both speak to a level of arrogance Josh or BB may have.

That is annoying to me. You call it arrogance because it doesn't follow conventional wisdom and in that particular instance it wasn't successful. And yet if you look at Bills entire coaching history you'll find that he doesn't do things conventionally.

When BB uses Vrabel as a TE who only catches touchdowns, he is being innovative and a genius. When BB uses Seymour as a FB and he gets hurt, he is being arrogant. When BB run's an uptempo offense based on a college system and it works its genius and innovative. When he makes forth down calls based on new statistical models and it doesn't work its called arrogant. Etc..etc.

The great thing about Bill that has made him successful over these many years is that he is willing to try different things. He isn't afraid to try something new if he thinks it will help them win. Not all of them are going to work, but most do. If you want someone that is going to always punt it by the book fire Belichick and go hire someone like Marty Schotenhiemer to run the organization. Otherwise, stop deriding him as arrogant just because he has an occasional failure from time to time and appreciate the fact that we have one of the very few coaches in this league that is willing to risk being innovative for a change.

 

[captain stone]

I agree that attempting unconvential 4th-down conversions can be the right call in some situations;
the purpose of 3rd down - esp in the 4th quarter - must therefore be to minimize the failure rate,
by (IMHO) running from a pass look, i.e. a quick toss sweep or delayed draw, or passing from
a run loook, i.e. the play-action cross-field flip to Gronk.

Those 3rd-down plays should've been better planned than they were, before the 4th downs ever arrived.

 

[Deus Irae]

That is annoying to me. You call it arrogance because it doesn't follow conventional wisdom and in that particular instance it wasn't successful. And yet if you look at Bills entire coaching history you'll find that he doesn't do things conventionally.

When BB uses Vrabel as a TE who only catches touchdowns, he is being innovative and a genius. When BB uses Seymour as a FB and he gets hurt, he is being arrogant. When BB run's an uptempo offense based on a college system and it works its genius and innovative. When he makes forth down calls based on new statistical models and it doesn't work its called arrogant. Etc..etc.

The great thing about Bill that has made him successful over these many years is that he is willing to try different things. He isn't afraid to try something new if he thinks it will help them win. Not all of them are going to work, but most do. If you want someone that is going to always punt it by the book fire Belichick and go hire someone like Marty Schotenhiemer to run the organization. Otherwise, stop deriding him as arrogant just because he has an occasional failure from time to time and appreciate the fact that we have one of the very few coaches in this league that is willing to risk being innovative for a change.

He screwed the pooch.

 

[TyronePoole]

I can't wait until 10-15 years from now when punting in that situation is looked back on as the laughably silly Joe Morgan-esque practice that it is.

 

[PatsDeb]

I'm not sure I understand. The situation you describe about having a huge lead and just trying to keep the clock moving was exactly the situation we were in. I don't think it had anything to do with being afraid of Manning having the ball. There was 8 minutes left. Of course he was going to have the ball again.

I don't consider a 10 point lead with over 6 minutes left in the 4th quarter to be a huge lead against Manning. I don't think BB considers it that either.