How Belichick, Brady, Manning, some math & a ball made me lose a religion

[creativeinsomnia]

It seems like most people didn't give him the benefit of the doubt and criticized the call.

I listen to a lot of sports talk radio and watch a lot of ESPN and I recall a handful of people saying it was a good call and that he had guts to make such a call, etc.

My point is this: If that was Eric Mangini or Romeo Cornell making that call, not one person would have taken his side. Instead, they would be calling for his head.

And my personal opinion on this is that I'm punting 100% of the time in that situation. I dont care about numbers and odds. There's a reason why teams don't go for it on 4th and short on that side of the field, because it's stupid.

[FlashLackey]

which team do you root for again FL?

I know the answer is going to be something on the fence like "i dont really see the need to be a fan of one team i just like football in general, I like college football more, but again i like all of the teams except the patriots"

Sorry to disappoint you. I've rooted for the Dolphins since I was a kid during the Dan Marino, Super Duper, Mark Clayton years. I kind of adopted the Chargers while living in Los Angeles as well. Rivers is probably my favorite player because he's more of a crap talker than most QBs.

In addition to the Patriots, I don't care for the Raiders. Just can't get into the whole black hole / parking lot killings thing. [Don't like the Steelers either. Except for Dennis Dixon.] [Oh yeah. And my least favorite player in the NFL is Eli Manning for his cry-baby routine when he didn't want to be drafted by the Chargers.]

I listen to a lot of sports talk radio and watch a lot of ESPN and I recall a handful of people saying it was a good call and that he had guts to make such a call, etc.

My point is this: If that was Eric Mangini or Romeo Cornell making that call, not one person would have taken his side. Instead, they would be calling for his head.

And my personal opinion on this is that I'm punting 100% of the time in that situation. I dont care about numbers and odds. There's a reason why teams don't go for it on 4th and short on that side of the field, because it's stupid.

It's possible that other coaches would be treated differently. I do agree that Belichick gets a pass on things, obviously. I just don't think this was a pass. He was actually right.


Check out blogs like Smart Football and the NFL Statistics one I linked to. There is quite a bit there about how the numbers suggest that most coaches aren't as aggressive as they should be.

There are reasons why people don't go for it other than it being the wrong play odds wise. One may be because the NFL tends very conservative. Million dollar salaries are at stake. So, sometimes decisions are made for political reasons rather than football ones.

Another reason might be that some coaches lack the balls to take risk, even though the odds suggest that they should.

[creativeinsomnia]

There are reasons why people don't go for it other than it being the wrong play odds wise. One may be because the NFL tends very conservative. Million dollar salaries are at stake. So, sometimes decisions are made for political reasons rather than football ones.

Another reason might be that some coaches lack the balls to take risk, even though the odds suggest that they should.

I still cant buy that dude. I cant honestly remember the last time I saw someone go for it on even 4th and inches in their own territory while holding a lead. (besides the Patriots last week obviously)

Throughout the history of football the times that has happened is minuscule. College, NFL, CFL, UFL, whatever.

I play a lot of poker and I believe in odds...but you cant just use odds. That's where you lose. So many more things go into a decision than just odds. Have you ever played a poker game and just done everything on odds? No. You'd lose.

Anyway, when i start seeing teams go for it on a regular basis in their own end, i'll buy your argument. But that wont happen because it's not the right decision, and hasnt been in the long history of the game.

[silverx2]

CI keep in mind, this wasn't going for it just to go for it middle of the game. this was going for it to end the game then and now. they pick up 2 yards, Game over.

[FlashLackey]

I still cant buy that dude. I cant honestly remember the last time I saw someone go for it on even 4th and inches in their own territory while holding a lead. (besides the Patriots last week obviously)

Throughout the history of football the times that has happened is minuscule. College, NFL, CFL, UFL, whatever.

I play a lot of poker and I believe in odds...but you cant just use odds. That's where you lose. So many more things go into a decision than just odds. Have you ever played a poker game and just done everything on odds? No. You'd lose.

Anyway, when i start seeing teams go for it on a regular basis in their own end, i'll buy your argument. But that wont happen because it's not the right decision, and hasnt been in the long history of the game.

Perception and status quo are powerful. It may be that many coaches continue to stick with what is usually done because failing at doing something different will get them more grief than failing at doing what is expected.

That is what is interesting about those studies of the numbers. They strongly suggest that what coaches continue to do out of custom hurts their odds of winning. That isn't based on what grandpa's football team used to do. That's based on what the results were in real life. Statistics gathered from actual games.

Way more people lose in poker by not playing the odds and taking bad risks than those who only play the odds. It's true that there are other things to pay attention to and a good player can recognize patterns and beat predictable players. But, unless you're playing in good tournaments with above average players, most aren't that good and take risks that they shouldn't. So, an average player can usually beat them simply by staying within the odds and catching the fools chasing low odd hands.

Play calling in NCAA football is way more aggressive than in the NFL. I just gave another example of a coach making a similar call, Chris Peterson with Boise State over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Going for the 2 point conversion instead of a tie. It wasn't only similar to Belichick's decision but it was more risky because if they didn't convert, they lost the game. If the Patriots didn't convert, they at least still had a shot at stopping the short drive.

Chris Peterson's call was widely lauded as genius. There are some circumstances where one short yardage play is a better chance to win a game than to give your opponent another shot with the ball.

[FlashLackey]

A very good read, imo, on this subject: http://smartfootball.com/grab-bag/so...about-thinking

[creativeinsomnia]

Perception and status quo are powerful. It may be that many coaches continue to stick with what is usually done because failing at doing something different will get them more grief than failing at doing what is expected.

I also cant buy that. Do you think these numbers you keep referring to are new? Do you think throughout the history of football, nobody has realized that your odds are better if you go for it on 4th and short instead of punting it? All these years of coaches scared of failing...nah...it's just because they know football and they know that you dont go for it when you dont absolutely need to, like 4th and short on your end with a lead.

Also, going back to poker. Playing the odds works better against better players. Playing your odds against a bunch of suckers pushing chips all over is going to get you busted out early. You have it backwards. Against below average players, you play the player not the odds. Against very good players, you play the odds.

Anyway, I'm not going to continue to argue with you because it's pointless. I know the odds say it's better, I get that. I'm just saying that I have the history of football on my side of the argument and you saying that they dont do it because they're scared of failing and perception is something i dont buy. Too may coaches throughout too many years.

[jAQUAN]

So is it safe to say you're more likely to convert on 4th and 2 than gain ground while debating FL?

[FlashLackey]

I also cant buy that. Do you think these numbers you keep referring to are new? Do you think throughout the history of football, nobody has realized that your odds are better if you go for it on 4th and short instead of punting it? All these years of coaches scared of failing...nah...it's just because they know football and they know that you dont go for it when you dont absolutely need to, like 4th and short on your end with a lead.

You're not taking into account the particulars of the situation. Most of the time, it's not a good idea to go for it on fourth down because converting doesn't mean that you win the game. The amount of time-outs remaining, time left on the clock, score and field position affect what decision is best. It only becomes worth it to go for it in a small sub-set of fourth down situations. It's hyperbole to suggest that it's wrong to go for it in some cases because it's right [to punt] in most other cases.

Also, going back to poker. Playing the odds works better against better players. Playing your odds against a bunch of suckers pushing chips all over is going to get you busted out early. You have it backwards. Against below average players, you play the player not the odds. Against very good players, you play the odds.

I will beat odds-only players almost every time. I don't consider that beating a good player. They are average.

A good player knows how to veil and switch their patterns while also reading yours. That means that they sometimes make moves outside of the odds when they have a good read.

A crappy player who just throws chips around will lose more often than not (in the long run or tournament play, not just a single hand) to a disciplined, tight player. A lot of players try to play tight but panic too early and switch to risky behavior and thus lose to overly aggressive players. That's what keeps them in business.

Anyway, I'm not going to continue to argue with you because it's pointless. I know the odds say it's better, I get that. I'm just saying that I have the history of football on my side of the argument and you saying that they dont do it because they're scared of failing and perception is something i dont buy. Too may coaches throughout too many years.

Belichick's recent decision and Chris Peterson's are part of that history. So, you can only be referring to a selected history. Or, perhaps a statistical average.

As the article I posted explains, the evidence is there. Some choose to dismiss it out of hand. Others factor it in, regardless of presumption.

So is it safe to say you're more likely to convert on 4th and 2 than gain ground while debating FL?

If you're wrong, yes.