from tip sheet notes

There was plenty of debate this week over New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick's decision to try to convert a fourth-and-2 play from his own 28-yard line in the closing minutes of last Sunday's loss at Indianapolis. We are certainly not smart enough or eloquent enough to add anything original to the thousands of words spoken or written about the controversial call, except this one point: the opinion that quarterback Tom Brady made a questionable read on his quick progression, and probably threw the ball to the wrong guy. After watching tape of the play at least a dozen times, it appears that slot receiver Wes Welker, aligned to the left, broke inside the Indianapolis coverage and was open for a relatively easy throw, probably a gain of 10 to 15 yards. Instead Brady threw the ball to tailback Kevin Faulk, who failed to catch the pass cleanly and thus came up short of the first down. If the typically astute Brady made a correct read and delivered the ball to Welker the game would have been over, and the media and fans would have been spared the obligatory investigation of Belichick's decision.

It's always 'obvious' who is open on replay. I'm as guilty as anyone on this.

I don't agree with the above. I've watched the replays and all the Patriot's recievers had very tight coverage.

Looked to me like Welker was available, but the umpire and one of the Colts who faked blitz and dropped back were in the field of vision -- not enough to block a pass, but perhaps enough to make Brady look Welker off.

What I don't understand is what Moss was doing on the play. He gets jammed at the line and then stands there, clogging Faulk's out route and depriving Brady of a downfield option.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5SpTlAqltU (play starts at 3:24)

right - because if you string all these ideas together, you end up with the result that scoring from 30 yards outside the endzone is almost a lock, but somehow going through that 40 yard wasteleand between the 30s is very difficult against some kind of prevent defense.

I'm trying to complile a list to show how the media came down on this issue. I just put in what I could think of - what other names can I add?

http://fourthandtwo.blogspot.com/200...nal-media.html

Is your name really Tony Stark?
Easterbrook should have an asterix next to him, since he thought MJD taking a kneel was stupid, which should be grounds for retroactive abortion.

no, just my alias.

I thought about talking about the MJD play, but wanted to keep it simple - although hard to see how one could see the BB call, but not that one imo.

I never heard any post game comments from Collingsworth either - just that he was surprised during the game, so I left him out for now.

That is not what Easterbrook said. He said that he liked the kneel, and then after milking those 40 seconds off the clock that he would then try to score the TD since the FG isn't 100%. That is a big difference, though I think milking all the time and kicking the FG is the best choice.

PB,

Do you have evidence for your various deifications ITT? I'm not saying you dont, and it seems reasonable that data like this exists. I'd be interested in reading it if it does. I'm just trying to fight this nagging feeling that you are making this gigantic, subtle, circular argument.

It's a little bit of an inexact question. If Belichick decided on third down it was a two down situation, which I believe he did, he then had almost an 80% chance getting the first down with two tries. Figuring in if they failed to get it maybe a 20% chance of stopping them from around their own 30, the call was great, imo. If you just punt, you've got somewhere in the 50% range to win, by going for it twice you are more than 80%.

trying to compete with simmons' logic?

I didn't read past the first sentence. There is no way he thought it was a 2 down situation or he doesn't call that timeout and not try to get the Colts to either burn a timeout or be caught off guard.

That's why I don't understand the rage. Bill Simmons is arguably the most read sports writer on the planet. His latest book hit #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list. He believes:

1) It's good to split tens playing blackjack
2) Other people's play has an effect on his chance of winning in blackjack
3) He lost sports betting because he bragged and 'angered the gambling gods'.
4) Poker is almost all luck
5) Certain blackjack dealers are harder to beat than others
6) The gambler's fallacy (last article contained an example)
7) All advanced basketball/football statistics are nonsense

etc, etc

And he's read/listened to by millions of people. You ever hear 'Don't tap on the glass?". Bill Simmons, although purely by accident, is building the aquarium and feeding the fish.

I really have a tough time believing that Bill Simmons is making us all a ton of money by mind virusing people. People suck at poker because they suck at poker imo

I'm pretty sure Simmons doesn't really believe all of these things. Some definitely, but not all of them (or at least not all the time).

It's a very good list though. Simmons has a real blame-the-dealer complex. I think what it shows is that (like almost every other sports writer) Simmons' default "go to" position is not logic but justification of his gut/instinct. He seems less results-oriented than most, but he is results oriented.

Sports Reporters is on this morning. Question is... Did BB make the right call?

Bob Ryan: Yes of course he did. Who do you trust more? Brady getting 2 yards, or the Pats defense stopping Manning when he has 4 downs?

Lupica: No of course not, why let Manning go 28 yards when he can go 70?

Mitch Albom- No, it's one of those things that if it works it's the right call. It didn't work and every single number out there that you can crunch says it was the bad call.

Ryan: (looking at Albom like he's a moran) Uhh no...


Way to do some actual research on the topic Lupica and Albom. Must be nice to have your job.

Not surprising. Ryan has always been the one sane member of that panel.

I would like to submit this to Brewer's phrase dictionary to replace whatever is their current entry under "Damning with faint praise."

Cool to see Brian Burke getting his ESPN moment.

lol Keyshawn (paraphrased) "I saw the math and all that.. but you have a better chance if you punt the ball".

sdfsdafsdafsdafkljklfjklsajfl

These people are crazy.

Cool segment, Keyshawn just put me on tilt though.

Wow, ESPN really going out of it's way to do the math with the forumla and defend Belichick. 79% to win when going for it against 70% to win when punting.

It was really funny (being from 2+2) when they took the Billick interview from 2002, paraphrasing, 'Look you could give me all the numbers you want, when it comes down to it it's 50/50, you either get the 4th down conversion or you dont'.

And Jesus Christ, Tom Jackson does his best to continually look like an idiot.