Comments for I can't believe I'm defending Bill Belichick at http://www.18to88.com , comment 1 to 46 out of 20 comments http://www.18to88.com Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:00:50 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3141 ESPN is just bitter that their favorite team got beat. The decision was not a great one, but that is because they did not convert. Belichick's awful decision was the play called, not to go for it. Also for using all his time outs. Going for it was a questionable decision, but he knew that the odds were in his favor if he kept the ball and the game was over if Peyton had the ball, regardless of where he started from. Brady got lucky; it should be him taking the blame, but lucky for him Powers did not hold onto a sure pick six, and Mathis' great D actually helped Brady's pass get overthrown, for had it not, it would have been a pick six for Lacey. The patriots lost to a better team in the 4th quarter (which is where great teams show up), Belichick's call just sealed sealed a loss that the team had given him. Yet, I could not be happier that a classless d bag like Billy has been getting his face rubbed in the dirt by analysts and his former players. - npb1985 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:29:50 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3128 I totally agree with AJ post. And about BB not trusting his defense: it`s true, he didnt. When Indy recovered the ball, it was clear why he was right in not trusting them. Indianapolis scored the last TD too easily. There were still 30yds to go... Patriots defense didn`t show up. NE had to stop Peyton, cause getting the ball back would be useless with no timeouts left. When the colts recovered the ball, it felt like NE has just lost the game... In the same situation i would prefer Indy to punt, even when going for it in 4th down would be a good call. i trust Colts defense too much against any QB in the league. and to me, that was the biggest difference between those 2 teams. Colts defense wins game. Lots of game, and you can trust they ll do it! - Nacho from Buenos Aires Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:34:35 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3124 The best way to keep Peyton Manning from scoring is to keep him sitting on the bench. We are lucky that Belichek didn't anticipate that situation. If he had more time to script it out things may have looked a bit different. Going for it in that situation was the right call. - teecee Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:15:32 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3122 And that was an awesome well thought out post AJ. I totally agree and wish I could have come up with it myself. - bubbadeez Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:03:22 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3121 I totally agree with going for it. I don't agree with the play selection. Line up big and run it twice. 3rd and two, run it and take the 2 min warning away from Indy, make it or not. THen decide whether to go on 4th or not (if you no gain, convert, or less than 2 but gain, do it again.) I hate the Patriots, but they deserved it. How can people not see that. I would also like to add this, to help settle the better qb argument. 3 rings and 1 MVP (from a tainted season with scandal) = better teams 1 ring (at least) and 3 (at least, maybe 4 this year) MVPs = better qb. period. - bubbadeez Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:07:38 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3113 Thanks, guys. ;D - A.J. Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:11:03 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3110 Great post AJ - jpjandrade Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:48:25 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3109 Thanks, AJ. I enjoyed that. Nice job. - DZ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:30:19 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3108 Even if I discard all the statistics regarding the matter of 4th down and 2 yards percentage wins, I still come to the same conclusion about Bellichick's call when I make a non-quantitative analysis. If your object is to win the game - and there is zero doubt that this is always the case - and if you're stuck with a single play to win the game, with failure of that play not eliminating your chance to win (remember, the Colts still had to score), then the real choice is whether you want the ball in the hands of [b]your[/b] team's best player, or of your opposition's. Why would Bellichick trust anyone other than Brady to win the game for him? There's a difference between trusting Manning to lose and trusting Brady to win: In only one of those scenarios does Bellichick have real control. And it's not the one where Manning gets the ball. Honest people will differ on this. There is a legitimate argument that being on defense is easier philisophically because your goal is only to react and disrupt, not build. Building is difficult. It can be interfered with. It can be upset. It can be dismantled. But I say that the argument saying "trust your own offense" is at least as legitimate; it accepts the notion of being in personal control of your own destiny, and not being dictated to by the opposition. Sure, the opposition could fail. But the question is, why give them any chance to succeed? If you execute, and if your confidence in your ability to execute has been validated by play up until that point, why cede control? Force them to stop you. That's the logical thing to do. Napoleon is purported to have said [i]"The logical end of defensive warfare is surrender"[/i]. The ultimate point behind that is that you do not have initiative, nor are you in control when you are on the defensive. If you have an offense capable of imposing its will - and who here doubts that New England does? - why remove them from the game? Why give up control? Especially when your offense is at worst equally capable of winning, [b]and[/b] by trusting that offense you end up keeping the initiative? Remember, New England's failure [i]only[/i] resulted in Indianapolis getting the ball back, albeit in favorable field position. And the Colts had to be both lucky (in having the DB Bullitt be where he was at) as well as good (in being able to not only make the tackle, but disrupt in a way that prevented the first down) simply to gain control of the ball. Recall: If it weren't for the bobble, the Patriots would have converted. You haven't ceded the touchdown if you fail, and you've kept control the entire time while daring the opponent to wrest it away from you. That Indianapolis did in fact grab it away does not change the equation: You hold the ball, you say to them "Mine", and you challenge them to stop you. And you do this with an offense completely capable of succeeding. You force Indianapolis to be not only lucky, but good as well just to gain the chance to win. And all you give up is field position. Isn't that a better than even trade? Ask a professional poker player whether he'd rather force an opponent to be both lucky [i]and[/i] good while holding the initiative, dictating play, and letting the win come naturally from his normal method of execution. Or, whether he'd rather cede control and be completely dependent on what the opponent does in order to win. Ask a combat general the very same question. The answer may not be 100% crystal clear, and would of course partially depend on circumstance, but it would hardly be murky: You don't cede initiative. You don't cede control. This long and windy post basically boils down to whether you want to be in control of what happens or not. And Bellichick wanted to be in control. Rightfully so. You can make a quantitative analysis if you want, but even when you approach the problem from another angle, you still come up with the same answer. - A.J. Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:27:04 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3107 Lol, everyone over at ESPN is saying the exact opposite of DZ's post, and Hoge is getting ripped for being the only one to agree with BB decision. Some of the analysis that goes on over there is extremely horrible. It feels like most of them watch highlights rather then the actual game and base their analysis off of a 5 minute highlight reel. OT: Anyone see the piece before the game where the players talked about the rivalry and hear what Bruschi had to say about it? He seemed to have no respect for the Colts whatsoever. He talked about how he hated us cause he thought we whined too much, asked for rule changes (which is kind of funny now), that we're soft, etc. He even got on us for wearing white jerseys! You wear white jerseys when you leave Foxboro too, jackass!! - 35er Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:12:21 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3105 and is it likely that after punting, 3 or 4 plays later, with ~a minute or less, Manning would be right back at the Colts 30 in the same situation? Brady ~60-70% likely to convert and win it all, vs giving the ball to Manning who might be 60-70% likely to reach the end zone himself, who do you trust if you are Belichek? Your own team with the ball in Brady's hands... and in fact he did put the ball in the hands of a player in position to make that play but who just couldn't get it done. I haven't found too many people in my office today who have been swayed by the data. It seems like most people who hate Brady also hated the play call, not sure what the correlation is on that little nugget. Anyway, good job Peyton and the Colts, see you around... - Timbuk3 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:14:21 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3099 I also love the Bruschi analysis that it "didn't give his defense a chance to win the game" - uh, Tedi? He put them out on the field with 2 minutes left and the lead and a chance to win the game. It's not the same chance as the ball on the other 30, of course, but they had a chance. A pretty good one. And something tells me that if you were still playing or this was 2003, you'd have been fired up as all hell and would say "he trusted our defense to win the game and we did!" or something to that effect. So now it's not trusting the defense? He went by the numbers. Let's not forget that even numbers assuming average teams favor the call. Let's also keep in mind that it took a bobble and great hit and favorable spot to even make the conversion fail. Everything went the Colts way and they barely got it. My only issue with it was that he didn't make the decision before 3rd down. Running a 3rd down play with 4th down in mind likely would've guaranteed success due to better play calling. My sincere hope is that now that this cat's out of the bag, Belichick starts running a no-punt offense in an attempt to prove that he's right. Or at the very least follows the chart on AdvancedNFLStats.com that dictates when to kick vs go in any spot/distance. That would be awesome. And you bet your ass I would root for the Pats the rest of the way. - Willy Duer Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:22:16 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3096 What really interests me about the Zeus numbers is that it confirms that NE had about a 75% chance of winning either way. The players failed. Not the coach. Belichick has deflect the criticism away from them brilliantly. - DZ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:55:47 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3093 Thanks Matt! Great find. - DZ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:48:35 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3092 That's not how they calculate the odds. There is plenty of data on 4th and 2s. There is plenty of data on probabilities of Indy scoring from their own 30 and from NEs 30. No, there is no one analogous situation, but there are plenty of situations that are similar in the components. Why would standard 2 point conversion data be any more valuable than specific data that says NE converts 4th and 2 at a 65% rate over the last several years? Standard 2 point rate includes things like muffed snaps as well. It also includes data from teams like Detroit. The data is pretty clear. It was the right call. - DZ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:42:36 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3091 The NY Times ran the situation through the ZEUS computer, and their results show that the "real" probabilities were pretty close, with about a 2% margin in favor of going for it. I think no matter how the probabilities break down, it is a close enough call that going for it isn't a bad decision. The other thing that is clear from reading several blogs is that the majority of football fans have an extremely poor understanding of statistics. [url]http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/zeus-computer-program-supports-belichicks-fourth-down-bid/[/url] - Matt the Geologist Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:41:28 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3089 OK. Leave field position out of it. I still don't buy that there's that much data available on team's that have been up by 6 with 2:00 left, going for it on 4th down and 2, no timeouts, the other team has one time out, etc. No freakin' way. Maybe once per decade and Advanced Stats cover 9 years. I am guessing the average 2-point conversion percentage is closer. Similar distance, similar psychology and probably similar play calling. 45% chance of success. Should've punted. At the time, I thought going for it was OK. - Merr Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:10:44 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3085 Absolutely correct. As a Pats fan, I also agree that he made the right choice. These are the two best QBs in the league this decade. You can either trust it in the hands of yours (Mine = TB) or hand it over to the other teams (PM). In every case, I would rather have the game in our hands rather than the other guys'. Did a big post on this on my site too. http://www.4sportboston.com/2009/11/16/why-belichick-is-not-an-idiot/ - Craigga Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:20:30 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3084 The success rate of fourth and two are independent of the position on the field. That's all been taken into account. The analysis only fails if you are saying the Pats had a significantly lower than 60-65% chance of converting that play. If that's what you are saying, I'd like to know why... - DZ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:16:21 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/november/i-cant-believe-im-defending-bill-belichick.html#comment-3082 I've seen much of the analysis (NFL Reference, Advanced Stats) Many flaws in the analysis. Namely, how many games have team's gone for it on 4th and 2 from inside their own 35 with 2:00 left, while holding a 6 point lead? That's a sample size problem. This is very different from the general "punt" versus "go for it when you're on the opponent's 40" question - there is a significant amount of statistical evidence supporting that strategy. In fact, I think we're all helping to kill the trend of going for it more on 4th. The Belichik decision is off on its own with no statistical evidence to either support or refute it. - Merr Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:11:57 +0100