Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Mangini would be too stupid to do what Belichick did


bkosar74

Recommended Posts

NFLStatAnalysis: Belichick Unwittingly Emboldened the Geeks

 

I have long felt that coaches are too conservative on 4th Down. Here's an interesting article about how stat geek are defending Belichick's decision. I totally agree. A guy like Mangini would never make that call because a) he's not smart enough and B) he's scared of losing his job.

 

 

 

I love the way the article closes out:

"The ability to store more and more data has allowed the average statistically minded fan to perform the analyses proving what they have long believed - but never had the data to prove.

 

The internet has provided a method to disseminate the message.

 

The Belichick discussion finally gives them a platform.

 

So. Game on. It's Microsoft Excel (or SAS, Minitab etc...) vs. old school thinking.

 

The empirically minded minority is getting a seat at the table. Will it change the way decisions are made in the NFL? Doubtful. But, the debates will certainly take on a new life."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likely the direction the game is headed, so the 1st down choice yielded nearly an 80% chance while the punt yielded a 70% of winning.

 

Still can't stand Belichick and the human factor message he sent to his defense for their next game is too detrimental, especially as compared to the confidence they'd get if they punted and the defense had stopped the Colts. Where's that stat ???... can't measure it.

 

Statistcally minded game takes the 'jock effect' out of the game.

 

NASCAR relies on technology now more than ever before and it's just increasing.

Hockey has studied angles and probabilities for years.

 

Sort of makes it hard to drink a beer AND pay attention at the same time !

So long traditional football. The geek squad is watching now ... and they may likley win the pools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the receiver did not bobble the ball it was a first down and BB looks like a genius. The Patriot defense had not looked good in the 4th quarter. If the Defense had stopped the colts two times in a row he would have punted.

 

I agree that the Masses would be lauding the gutsy 4th and 2 call of Belichick if it worked, but I'm in the group that says it would still have been a mistake statistically.

 

Yes, the Defense was tired... but it was clearly a gamble that had to recognize that had it not worked, the job of a tired defense to stop the Colts from moving 28 yards would be much harder than stopping the Colts from moving the ball, say 58 yards.

 

The optimum word here is "The Colts"

 

The "statistics" cited in this article - and by others - aren't incorrect. They include all NFL teams in general when factoring the success an NFL team has against others... and the ability for other teams to successfully move the ball for a TD.

 

So those Statistics include the ability of the Browns and Raiders and other lower rung teams to stop a 4th & 2... and the ability of such teams to move from the 28 yard line in for a TD.

 

So you have to ask yourself, if when you're playing a team like the Colts, do you look at them and their ability to prevent a 2 yard gain or move the ball 28 yards differently than you'd look at the Browns ability to do so?

 

I'd think one absolutely would... so the fact that the Browns are disrupting that statistical bell curve is a pretty important piece to consider, as well as the fact that the Colts do a better job than the statistical average.

 

It's yet another area in where common sense defeats the statistical proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Masses would be lauding the gutsy 4th and 2 call of Belichick if it worked, but I'm in the group that says it would still have been a mistake statistically.

 

Yes, the Defense was tired... but it was clearly a gamble that had to recognize that had it not worked, the job of a tired defense to stop the Colts from moving 28 yards would be much harder than stopping the Colts from moving the ball, say 58 yards.

 

The optimum word here is "The Colts"

 

The "statistics" cited in this article - and by others - aren't incorrect. They include all NFL teams in general when factoring the success an NFL team has against others... and the ability for other teams to successfully move the ball for a TD.

 

So those Statistics include the ability of the Browns and Raiders and other lower rung teams to stop a 4th & 2... and the ability of such teams to move from the 28 yard line in for a TD.

 

So you have to ask yourself, if when you're playing a team like the Colts, do you look at them and their ability to prevent a 2 yard gain or move the ball 28 yards differently than you'd look at the Browns ability to do so?

 

I'd think one absolutely would... so the fact that the Browns are disrupting that statistical bell curve is a pretty important piece to consider, as well as the fact that the Colts do a better job than the statistical average.

 

It's yet another area in where common sense defeats the statistical proof.

 

Considering that one of BB's mantras is that you have to be able to get a yard when you need it...I don't blame him for going for it. You've got friggin' all-world talent on that side of the ball...you stand a good chance of making one yard.

 

I personally would have punted it but I don't think that the decision to go for it merits as much attention as it's gotten. It's easy to criticize it in hindsight.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that one of BB's mantras is that you have to be able to get a yard when you need it...I don't blame him for going for it. You've got friggin' all-world talent on that side of the ball...you stand a good chance of making one yard.

 

I personally would have punted it but I don't think that the decision to go for it merits as much attention as it's gotten. It's easy to criticize it in hindsight.

 

Yeah - but where you are (on the field) and who you're playing definately factors into the decision.

 

The statistics referenced above would have you play the Colts the same way you would the Browns. I have a feeling if you applied another stat that factored in good and bad teams the stats might not support going for it.

 

The criticisms are justified IMO... that doesn't mean Belichick was wrong... he knows more about football than I do... but that doesn't mean he was right either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah - but where you are (on the field) and who you're playing definately factors into the decision.

 

The statistics referenced above would have you play the Colts the same way you would the Browns. I have a feeling if you applied another stat that factored in good and bad teams the stats might not support going for it.

 

The criticisms are justified IMO... that doesn't mean Belichick was wrong... he knows more about football than I do... but that doesn't mean he was right either.

 

I hear you but just to play Devil's Advocate....you have at least as much talent on your offense as the Colts do on defense. I don't have a problem trying to seal the game there. I think that a lot of guys are vocal about it now because they know how it turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...